Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Stroke Research and Treatment
Volume 2018, Article ID 8087372, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8087372
Review Article

Rationale for Intervention and Dose Is Lacking in Stroke Recovery Trials: A Systematic Review

1Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, 245 Burgundy St., Heidelberg 3084, VIC, Australia
2NHMRC CRE Stroke Rehabilitation & Brain Recovery, 245 Burgundy St., Heidelberg 3084, VIC, Australia
3Brain Behaviour Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, The University of British Columbia, Koerner Pavilion UBC Hospital, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T2B7, Canada

Correspondence should be addressed to Julie Bernhardt; ua.ude.yerolf@tdrahnreb.eiluj

Received 3 May 2018; Accepted 8 October 2018; Published 30 October 2018

Academic Editor: Augusto Fusco

Copyright © 2018 Karen Borschmann et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. C. S. Kidwell, D. S. Liebeskind, S. Starkman, and J. L. Saver, “Trends in acute ischemic stroke trials through the 20th century,” Stroke, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1349–1359, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. A. Mcintyre, M. Richardson, S. Janzen, N. Hussein, and R. Teasell, “The evolution of stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials,” International Journal of Stroke, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 789–792, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. N. E. Mayo, N. Kaur, S. P. Barbic et al., “How have research questions and methods used in clinical trials published in Clinical Rehabilitation changed over the last 30 years?” Clinical Rehabilitation, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 847–864, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. Fisher, G. Feuerstein, D. W. Howells et al., “Update of the stroke therapy academic industry roundtable preclinical recommendations,” Stroke, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 2244–2250, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. K. F. Schulz, L. Chalmers, R. J. Hayes, and D. G. Altman, “Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 273, no. 5, pp. 408–412, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. V. Hachinski, G. A Donnan, P. B Gorelick et al., “Stroke: Working toward a prioritized world agenda,” International Journal of Stroke, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 238–256, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  7. J. Bernhardt, K. Borschmann, L. Boyd et al., “Moving rehabilitation research forward: Developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research,” International Journal of Stroke, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 454–458, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. S. C. Cramer, S. L. Wolf, H. P. Adams et al., “Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Research: Issues, Opportunities, and the National Institutes of Health StrokeNet,” Stroke, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 813–819, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. U. Dirnagl, “Thomas Willis Lecture: Is Translational Stroke Research Broken, and if So, How Can We Fix It?” Stroke, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 2148–2153, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. C. Begg, M. Cho, and S. Eastwood, “Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 276, no. 8, pp. 637–639, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. L. Thabane, J. Ma, R. Chu et al., “A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how,” BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 10, article 1, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. T. C. Hoffmann, P. P. Glasziou, I. Boutron et al., “Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide,” BMJ, vol. 348, Article ID g1687, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. P. Craig, P. Dieppe, S. Macintyre, S. Michie, I. Nazareth, and M. Petticrew, “Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance,” International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 587–592, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. M. Campbell, R. Fitzpatrick, A. Haines et al., “Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health,” British Medical Journal, vol. 321, no. 7262, pp. 694–696, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. S. J. Page, A. Schmid, and J. E. Harris, “Optimizing terminology for stroke motor rehabilitation: Recommendations from the american congress of rehabilitation medicine stroke movement interventions subcommittee,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol. 93, no. 8, pp. 1395–1399, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. C. English, S. L. Hillier, and E. A. Lynch, “Circuit class therapy for improving mobility after stroke,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 2017, no. 6, 2017. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. K. R. Lohse, C. E. Lang, and L. A. Boyd, “Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation,” Stroke, vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 2053–2058, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. J. D. M. Vloothuis, M. Mulder, J. M. Veerbeek et al., “Caregiver-mediated exercises for improving outcomes after stroke,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 12, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  19. C. E. Lang, K. R. Lohse, and R. L. Birkenmeier, “Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: Prescribing motor therapy after stroke,” Current Opinion in Neurology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 549–555, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. C. Grefkes and G. R. Fink, “Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function,” The Lancet Neurology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 206–216, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. D. M. Basso and C. E. Lang, “Consideration of Dose and Timing When Applying Interventions after Stroke and Spinal Cord Injury,” Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, vol. 41, pp. S24–S31, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. The AVERT Trial Collaboration group et al., “Efficacy and safety of very early mobilisation within 24 h of stroke onset (AVERT): a randomised controlled trial,” The Lancet, vol. 386, no. 9988, pp. 46–55, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. M. F. Walker, T. C. Hoffmann, M. C. Brady et al., “Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable,” International Journal of Stroke, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 472–479, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. D. Moher, L. Shamseer, and M. Clarke, “Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement,” Systematic Reviews, vol. 4, no. 1, article 1, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  25. S. Nakagawa, “A farewell to Bonferroni: The problems of low statistical power and publication bias,” Behavioral Ecology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1044-1045, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data,” Biometrics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 159–174, 1977. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. C. De Angelis, J. M. Drazen, F. A. Frizelle et al., “Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.,” Stroke, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 924-925, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. J. Biernaskie, G. Chernenko, and D. Corbett, “Efficacy of Rehabilitative Experience Declines with Time after Focal Ischemic Brain Injury,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1245–1254, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. M. S. Jeffers, S. Karthikeyan, M. Gomez-Smith et al., “Does Stroke Rehabilitation Really Matter? Part B: An Algorithm for Prescribing an Effective Intensity of Rehabilitation,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 73–83, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. M. S. Jeffers, S. Karthikeyan, and D. Corbett, “Does Stroke Rehabilitation Really Matter? Part A: Proportional Stroke Recovery in the Rat,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3–6, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. J. Bernhardt, K. S. Hayward, G. Kwakkel et al., “Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: The Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable taskforce,” International Journal of Stroke, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 444–450, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. C. E. Lang, M. J. Strube, M. D. Bland et al., “Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months poststroke: a phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 342–354, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. C. J. Winstein, S. L. Wolf, A. W. Dromerick et al., “Effect of a task-oriented rehabilitation program on upper extremity recovery following motor stroke: the ICARE randomized clinical trial,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 315, no. 6, pp. 571–581, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. L. A. Boyd, K. S. Hayward, N. S. Ward et al., “Biomarkers of stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable,” International Journal of Stroke, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 480–493, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. G. Kwakkel, N. A. Lannin, K. Borschmann et al., “Standardized Measurement of Sensorimotor Recovery in Stroke Trials: Consensus-Based Core Recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 784–792, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. D. Corbett, S. T. Carmichael, T. H. Murphy et al., “Enhancing the alignment of the preclinical and clinical stroke recovery research pipeline: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable translational working group,” International Journal of Stroke, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 462–471, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. The ATTEND Collaborative Group, “Family-led rehabilitation after stroke in India (ATTEND): a randomised controlled trial,” Lancet, vol. 390, pp. 588–599, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  38. E. Godecke, S. Middleton, E. Armstrong et al., “Therapy fidelity and trial progress in the Very Early Rehabilitation in SpEech (VERSE) trial,” International Journal of Stroke, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  39. S. L. Wolf, A. W. Dromerick, C. J. Lane et al., “ICARE primary results: A Phase III stroke rehabilitation trial,” in International Stroke Conference, American Heart Association, Nashville, 2014.