On the Reporting of Experimental and Control Therapies in Stroke Rehabilitation Trials: A Systematic Review

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Volumn 99, Issue 7, 2018, Pages 1424-1432

  Lohse, Keith R ^a,b   Pathania, Anupriya ^a,b   Wegman, Rebecca ^b   Boyd, Lara A ^c   Lang, Catherine E ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^d WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Data reporting; Informatics; Rehabilitation; Research design; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA EXTRACTION; DATA SYNTHESIS; EMBASE; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SCIENCE; INTERNAL VALIDITY; MALE; MEDLINE; NURSING; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REHABILITATION; STROKE REHABILITATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CONTROL GROUP; FACTUAL DATABASE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; PROCEDURES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REHABILITATION RESEARCH; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

CONTROL GROUPS; DATA ACCURACY; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REHABILITATION RESEARCH; STROKE REHABILITATION;

EID: 85042618404     PISSN: 00039993     EISSN: 1532821X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.12.024     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Duff, J.M., Leather, H., Walden, E.O., LaPlant, K.D., George, T.J., Adequacy of published oncology randomized controlled trials to provide therapeutic details needed for clinical application. J Natl Cancer Inst 102 (2010), 702–705.
2. Glasziou, P., Meats, E., Heneghan, C., Shepperd, S., What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?. BMJ 336 (2008), 1472–1474.
3. Schroter, S., Glasziou, P., Heneghan, C., Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open, 2, 2012, e001978.
4. Schulz, K.F., Altman, D.G., Moher, D., et al. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med, 8, 2010, 18.
5. Hoffmann, T.C., Glasziou, P.P., Boutron, I., et al. Better reporting of interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 348, 2014, g1687.
6. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151 (2009), 264–269.
7. Lang, C.E., Lohse, K.R., Birkenmeier, R.L., Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: prescribing motor therapy after stroke. Curr Opin Neurol 28 (2015), 549–555.
8. Lohse, K.R., Schaefer, S.Y., Raikes, A.C., Boyd, L.A., Lang, C.E., Asking new questions with old data: the Centralized Open-Access Rehabilitation Database for Stroke. Front Neurol, 7, 2016, 153.
9. DeJong, G., Horn, S.D., Gassaway, J.A., Slavin, M.D., Dijkers, M.P., Toward a taxonomy of rehabilitation interventions: using an inductive approach to examine the “black box” of rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85 (2004), 678–686.
10. DeJong, G., Horn, S.D., Conroy, B., Nichols, D., Healton, E.B., Opening the black box of poststroke rehabilitation: stroke rehabilitation patients, processes, and outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86 (2005), 1–7.
11. Mohabbati-Kalejahi, N., Yazdi, M.A.A., Megahed, F.M., et al. Streamlining science with structured data archives: insights from stroke rehabilitation. Scientometrics 113 (2017), 969–983.
12. Hoffmann, T.C., Walker, M.F., “TIDieR-ing up” the reporting of interventions in stroke research: the importance of knowing what is in the “black box”. Int J Stroke 10 (2015), 657–658.
13. Yamato, T., Maher, C., Saragiotto, B., et al. The TIDieR checklist will benefit the physical therapy profession. Phys Ther 96 (2016), 930–931.
14. van Vliet, P., Hunter, S.M., Donaldson, C., Pomeroy, V., Using the TIDieR checklist to standardize the description of a functional strength training intervention for the upper limb after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther 40 (2016), 203–208.
15. Schardt, C., Adams, M.B., Owens, T., Keitz, S., Fontelo, P., Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 7, 2007, 16.
16. Duncan, P.W., Sullivan, K.J., Behrman, A.L., et al. Body-weight-supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med, 364, 2011, 2026.
17. Harris, J.E., Eng, J.J., Miller, W.C., Dawson, A.S., A self-administered Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Program (GRASP) improves arm function during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a multi-site randomized controlled trial. Stroke 40 (2009), 2123–2128.
18. Lo, A., Guarino, P., Richards, L., Haselkorn, J., Wittenberg, G., Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med 362 (2010), 1772–1783.
19. Parry, R., Lincoln, N., Vass, C., Effect of severity of arm impairment on response to additional physiotherapy early after stroke. Clin Rehabil 13 (1999), 187–198.
20. Saposnik, G., Teasell, R., Mamdani, M., et al. Effectiveness of virtual reality using Wii gaming technology in stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized clinical trial and proof of principle. Stroke 41 (2010), 1477–1484.
21. Dean, C.M., Ada, L., Bampton, J., Morris, M.E., Katrak, P.H., Potts, S., Treadmill walking with body weight support in subacute non-ambulatory stroke improves walking capacity more than overground walking: a randomised trial. J Physiother, 56, 2010, 97.
22. Timmermans, A.A., Verbunt, J.A., van Woerden, R., Moennekens, M., Pernot, D.H., Seelen, H.A., Effect of mental practice on the improvement of function and daily activity performance of the upper extremity in patients with subacute stroke: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14 (2013), 204–212.
23. van Delden, A.L., Peper, C.L., Nienhuys, K.N., Zijp, N.I., Beek, P.J., Kwakkel, G., Unilateral versus bilateral upper limb training after stroke: the upper limb training after stroke clinical trial. Stroke 44 (2013), 2613–2616.
24. Snijders, T., Bosker, R., Multilevel analysis. 2012, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
25. Holmes Finch, W., Bolin, J., Kelley, K., Multilevel modelling using R. 2014, CRC Pr, Boca Raton.
26. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Available at: http://www.r-project.org/. (Accessed 17 September 2014)
27. Wickham, H., Francois, R., dplyr: a grammar of data manipulation. R Package version 0.3.0.2. Available at: http://user2014.stat.ucla.edu/abstracts/talks/45_Wickham.pdf, 2014. (Accessed 17 August 2015)
28. Bates, D., lme4: mixed-effects modeling with R. 2010, Springer, New York.
29. Wickham, H., ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. 2009, Springer-Verlag, New York.
30. Kuznetsov, A., Brockhoff, P.B., Christensen, R.H.B., lmerTest: tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package), v. 2.0–25. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/package=lmerTest, 2013 Accessed June 30, 2017.
31. Whyte, J., Hart, T., It's more than a black box, it's a Russian doll: defining rehabilitation treatments. J Phys Med Rehabil 82 (2003), 639–652.
32. Reinkensmeyer, D.J., Burdet, E., Casadio, M., et al. Computational neurorehabilitation: modeling plasticity and learning to predict recovery. J Neuroeng Rehabil, 13, 2016, 42.
33. Dijkers, M., Hart, T., Tsaousides, T., Whyte, J., Treatment taxonomy for rehabilitation: past, present, and prospects. Arch Phys 95 (2014), S6–S16.
34. Whyte, J., Dijkers, M., Hart, T., Zanca, J., Packel, A., Development of a theory-driven rehabilitation treatment taxonomy: conceptual issues. Arch Phys 95 (2014), S24–S32.
35. Moher, D., Schulz, K.F., Altman, D.G., The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357 (2001), 1191–1194.
36. Hoffmann, T., Erueti, C., Glasziou, P., Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. BMJ, 347, 2013, f3755.
37. Donaldson, C., Tallis, R., Pomeroy, V., A treatment schedule of conventional physical therapy provided to enhance upper limb sensorimotor recovery after stroke: expert criterion validity and intra-rater reliability. Physiotherapy 95 (2009), 110–119.
38. Hunter, S., Crome, P., Sim, J., Donaldson, C., Development of treatment schedules for research: a structured review to identify methodologies used and a worked example of ‘mobilisation and tactile stimulation’ for stroke patients. Physiotherapy 92 (2006), 195–207.
39. Kleim, J.A., Barbay, S., Nudo, R.J., Functional reorganization of the rat motor cortex following motor skill learning. J Neurophysiol 80 (1998), 3321–3325.
40. Nudo, R.J., Wise, B.M., SiFuentes, F., Milliken, G.W., Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science 272 (1996), 1791–1794.
41. Lang, C.E., Macdonald, J.R., Reisman, D.S., et al. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90 (2009), 1692–1698.
42. Lang, C., Strube, M., Bland, M., et al. Dose-response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months post stroke: a phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Neurol 80 (2016), 342–354.
43. Stinear, C.M., Barber, P.A., Coxon, J.P., Fleming, M.K., Byblow, W.D., Priming the motor system enhances the effects of upper limb therapy in chronic stroke. Brain 131 (2008), 1381–1390.