Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

International Journal of Stroke

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 451-461

  Kwakkel, Gert ^a,b   Lannin, Natasha A ^c,d   Borschmann, Karen ^e,f   English, Coralie ^f,g   Ali, Myzoon ^h,i   Churilov, Leonid ^e,f   Saposnik, Gustavo ^j   Winstein, Carolee ^k   van Wegen, Erwin EH ^a   Wolf, Steven L ^l,m   Krakauer, John W ⁿ   Bernhardt, Julie ^e,f  

^a Amsterdam Movement Sciences   (Netherlands)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d Alfred Health ^*  (Australia)

^e FLOREY INSTITUTE OF NEUROSCIENCE AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Australia)

^f National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

^h GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^j ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^k UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^l EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^m VA Center of Excellence and Neurocognitive Rehabilitation   (United States)

ⁿ JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Clinical research; international; outcomes; recommendations; recovery; stroke

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONSENSUS; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONVALESCENCE; DEMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF FUNCTIONING, DISABILITY AND HEALTH; KINEMATICS; KINETICS; MEASUREMENT; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REHABILITATION RESEARCH; SENSORIMOTOR FUNCTION; STANDARD; STANDARDIZATION; STROKE REHABILITATION; BIOMECHANICS; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; SENSATION; STANDARDS;

BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MOTOR ACTIVITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SENSATION; STROKE; STROKE REHABILITATION;

EID: 85023747983     PISSN: 17474930     EISSN: 17474949     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1747493017711813     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Ali M, English C, Bernhardt J, Sunnerhagen KS, Brady M, Collaboration VI, -R. More outcomes than trials: a call for consistent data collection across stroke rehabilitation trials. Int J Stroke 2013; 8: 18–24.
2. Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC. Cochrane Overview interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Stroke 2015; 46: E57–E58.
3. Veerbeek JM, Kwakkel G, van Wegen EEH, Ket JCF, Heymans MW. Early Prediction of outcome of activities of daily living after stroke: a systematic review. Stroke 2011; 42: 1482–1488.
4. Winters C, Heymans MW, van Wegen EE, Kwakkel G. How to design clinical rehabilitation trials for the upper paretic limb early post stroke? Trials 2016; 17: 468.
5. Berg A, Palomaki H, Lehtihalmes M, Lonnqvist J, Kaste M. Poststroke depression: an 18-month follow-up. Stroke 2003; 34: 138–143.
6. Pongmoragot J, Lee DS, Park TH, Fang J, Austin PC, Saposnik G. Stroke and heart failure: clinical features, access to care, and outcomes. J Stroke Cerebrovas Dis 2016; 25: 1048–1056.
7. Bernhardt J, Borschmann K, Boyd L. Moving rehabilitation research forward: developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research. Int J Stroke 2016; 11: 454–458.
8. Salinas J, Sprinkhuizen SM, Ackerson T. An international standard set of patient-centered outcome measures after stroke. Stroke 2016; 47: 180–186.
9. Wallace SJ, Worrall L, Rose T, Le Dorze G. Measuring outcomes in aphasia research: a review of current practice and an agenda for standardisation. Aphasiology 2014; 28: 1364–1384.
10. Bernhardt J, Hayward KS, Kwakkel G, et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: The Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable taskforce. Int J of Stroke 2017. DOI: 10.1177/1747493017711816
11. Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehab Neural Repair 2009; 23: 313–319.
12. Buma F, Kwakkel G, Ramsey N. Understanding upper limb recovery after stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2013; 31: 707–722.
13. Grefkes C, Fink GR. Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function. Lancet Neurol 2014; 13: 206–216.
14. Keeney R. Value-focused thinking, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1996.
15. Utley M, Gallivan S, Mills M, Mason M, Hargraves C. A consensus process for identifying a prioritised list of study questions. Health Care Manage Sci 2007; 10: 105–110.
16. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 539–549.
17. Bernhardt J, Raffelt A, Churilov L. Exploring threats to generalisability in a large international rehabilitation trial (AVERT). BMJ Open 2015; 5: e008378.
18. Wolf SL, Winstein CJ, Miller JP. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 2095–2104.
19. Kwakkel G, Winters C, van Wegen EEH. Effects of unilateral upper limb training in two distinct prognostic groups early after stroke: the explicit-stroke randomized clinical trial. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2016; 30: 804–816.
20. Edwardson M and Dromerick A. Ischemic stroke prognosis in adults, www.uptodate.com/contents/ischemic-stroke-prognosis-in-adults#references (accessed 18 May 2017)
21. Holloway RG, Arnold RM, Creutzfeldt CJ. Palliative and end-of-life care in stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2014; 45: 1887–18916.
22. Demaerschalk BM, Kleindorfer DO, Adeoye OM. Scientific Rationale for the inclusion and exclusion criteria for intravenous alteplase in acute ischemic stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2016; 47: 581–641.
23. Katzan IL, Spertus J, Bettger JP. Risk adjustment of ischemic stroke outcomes for comparing hospital performance: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2014; 45: 918–944.
24. Boyd LA, Hayward KS, Ward NS et al. Biomarkers of stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke 2017. DOI: 10.1177/1747493017714176
25. Macmahon S, Rodgers A. The epidemiological association between blood pressure and stroke - implications for primary and secondary prevention. Hypertens Res 1994; 17(Suppl 1): S23–S32.
26. Tuomilehto J, Rastenyte D, Jousilahti P, Sarti C, Vartiainen E. Diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for death from stroke - Prospective study of the middle-aged Finnish population. Stroke 1996; 27: 210–215.
27. Kissela B, Lindsell CJ, Kleindorfer D. Clinical prediction of functional outcome after ischemic stroke the surprising importance of periventricular white matter disease and race. Stroke 2009; 40: 530–536.
28. Lee CD, Folsom AR, Blair SN. Physical activity and stroke risk – a meta-analysis. Stroke 2003; 34: 2475–2481.
29. O'Donnell MJ, Chin SL, Rangarajan S. Global and regional effects of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with acute stroke in 32 countries (INTERSTROKE): a case-control study. Lancet 2016; 388: 761–775.
30. Lee PH, Macfarlane DJ, Lam TH, Stewart SM. Validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF): a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activ 2011; 8: 115.
31. Kitago T, Goldsmith J, Harran M, et al. Robotic therapy for chronic stroke: general recovery of impairment or improved task-specific skill? J Neurophysiol 2015; 114: 1885–1894
32. Kwakkel G, Veerbeek JM, van Wegen EE, Wolf SL. Constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke. Lancet Neurol 2015; 14: 224–234.
33. van Kordelaar J, van Wegen EE, Nijland RH, Daffertshofer A, Kwakkel G. Understanding adaptive motor control of the paretic upper limb early poststroke: the EXPLICIT-stroke program. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2013; 27: 854–863.
34. Santisteban L, Teremetz M, Bleton JP, Baron JC, Maier MA, Lindberg PG. Upper Limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. Plos One 2016; 11: e0154792.
35. Nordin N, Xie SQ, Wunsche B. Assessment of movement quality in robot- assisted upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review. J Neuroeng Rehab 2014; 11: 137.
36. Patterson KK, Gage WH, Brooks D, Black SE, McIlroy WE. Evaluation of gait symmetry after stroke: a comparison of current methods and recommendations for standardization. Gait Posture 2010; 31: 241–246.
37. Pelton T, van Vliet P, Hollands K. Interventions for improving coordination of reach to grasp following stroke: a systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthcare 2012; 10: 89–102.
38. Ellis MD, Sukal-Moulton T, Dewald JPA. Progressive Shoulder abduction loading is a crucial element of arm rehabilitation in chronic stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2009; 23: 862–869.
39. Cirstea MC, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain 2000; 123: 940–953.
40. Cirstea M, Levin M. Improvement of arm movement patterns and endpoint control depends on type of feedback during practice in stroke survivors. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2007; 21: 398–411.
41. Kitago T, Krakauer JW. Motor learning principles for neurorehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol 2013; 110: 93–103.
42. van Kordelaar J, van Wegen E, Kwakkel G. Impact of time on quality of motor control of the paretic upper limb after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2014; 95: 338–344.
43. Lehrer N, Attygalle S, Wolf SL, Rikakis T. Exploring the bases for a mixed reality stroke rehabilitation system, Part I: a unified approach for representing action, quantitative evaluation, and interactive feedback. J Neuroeng Rehabi 2011; 8: 51.
44. Lehrer N, Chen YP, Duff M, Wolf SL, Rikakis T. Exploring the bases for a mixed reality stroke rehabilitation system, Part II: design of Interactive Feedback for upper limb rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehab 2011; 8: 54.
45. van Vliet PM, Sheridan MR. Ability to adjust reach extent in the hemiplegic arm. Physiotherapy 2009; 95: 176–184.
46. van Vliet P, Pelton TA, Hollands KL, Carey L, Wing AM. Neuroscience findings on coordination of reaching to grasp an object: implications for research. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2013; 27: 622–635.
47. Wu CY, Chou SH, Kuo MY, Chen CL, Lu TW, Fu YC. Effects of object size on intralimb and interlimb coordination during a bimanual prehension task in patients with left cerebral vascular accidents. Motor Control 2008; 12: 296–310.
48. Kamper DG, McKenna-Cole AN, Kahn LE, Reinkensmeyer DJ. Alterations in reaching after stroke and their relation to movement direction and impairment severity. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2002; 83: 702–707.
49. Geurts AC, de Haart M, van Nes IJ, Duysens J. A review of standing balance recovery from stroke. Gait Posture 2005; 22: 267–281.
50. de Haart M, Geurts AC, Huidekoper SC, Fasotti L, van Limbeek J. Recovery of standing balance in postacute stroke patients: a rehabilitation cohort study. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2004; 85: 886–895.
51. van Asseldonk EH, Buurke JH, Bloem BR. Disentangling the contribution of the paretic and non-paretic ankle to balance control in stroke patients. Exp Neurol 2006; 201: 441–451.
52. Schepers HM, van Asseldonk EHF, Buurke JH, Veltink PH. Ambulatory Estimation of center of mass displacement during walking. IEEE T Bio Med Eng 2009; 56: 1189–1195.
53. Walker MF, Hoffmann TC, Brady MC, et al. Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke 2017. DOI: 10.1177/1747493017711815
54. See J, Dodakian L, Chou C. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2013; 27: 732–741.
55. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Note for guidance on good clinical practice (CPMP/ICH/135/95) Annotated with TGA comments, 2000
56. Sposato LA, Ovbiagele B, Johnston SC, Fisher M, Saposnik G, Grp SORW. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at stroke. Ann Neurol 2014; 76: 151–158.
57. Bentley P, Kumar G, Rinne P. Lesion locations influencing baseline severity and early recovery in ischaemic stroke. EurJ Neurol 2014; 21: 1226–1232.
58. Park TH, Saposnik G, Bae HJ. The iScore predicts functional outcome in korean patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke 2013; 44: 1440–1442.
59. Saposnik G, Kapral MK, Liu Y. IScore a risk score to predict death early after hospitalization for an acute ischemic stroke. Circulation 2011; 123: 739–U172.
60. Tseng MC, Chang KC. Stroke severity and early recovery after first-ever ischemic stroke: results of a hospital-based study in Taiwan. Health Policy 2006; 79: 73–78.
61. Zeiler SR and Krakauer JW. The interaction between training and plasticity in the poststroke brain. Curr Opin Neurol 2013; 26: 609–616