The Prognostic Utility of Electroencephalography in Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background

Improved ability to predict patient recovery would guide post-stroke care by helping clinicians personalize treatment and maximize outcomes. Electroencephalography (EEG) provides a direct measure of the functional neuroelectric activity in the brain that forms the basis for neuroplasticity and recovery, and thus may increase prognostic ability.

Objective

To examine evidence for the prognostic utility of EEG in stroke recovery via systematic review/meta-analysis.

Methods

Peer-reviewed journal articles that examined the relationship between EEG and subsequent clinical outcome(s) in stroke were searched using electronic databases. Two independent researchers extracted data for synthesis. Linear meta-regressions were performed across subsets of papers with common outcome measures to quantify the association between EEG and outcome.

Results

75 papers were included. Association between EEG and clinical outcomes was seen not only early post-stroke, but more than 6 months post-stroke. The most studied prognostic potential of EEG was in predicting independence and stroke severity in the standard acute stroke care setting. The meta-analysis showed that EEG was associated with subsequent clinical outcomes measured by the Modified Rankin Scale, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (r = .72, .70, and .53 from 8, 13, and 12 papers, respectively). EEG improved prognostic abilities beyond prediction afforded by standard clinical assessments. However, the EEG variables examined were highly variable across studies and did not converge.

Conclusions

EEG shows potential to predict post-stroke recovery outcomes. However, evidence is largely explorative, primarily due to the lack of a definitive set of EEG measures to be used for prognosis.

Keywords

stroke EEG rehabilitation prognosis meta-analysis

Introduction

Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability in the United States.^1,2 Since stroke is heterogenous, functional ability and treatment response vary greatly among stroke survivors.³ Currently, due to poor prognostic abilities, clinicians experience difficulty developing personalized treatment plans that maximize patient outcomes. Improved prognostic ability would direct treatment planning and provide individual patients with the maximally efficient course of treatment. Specifically, physicians may utilize patients’ recovery prognosis to determine the most appropriate discharge setting. Once patients are referred to rehabilitation, therapists may utilize patients’ recovery prognosis to set appropriate rehabilitation goals and administer individualized therapy. For example, for patients predicted to require a moderate level of assistance, therapists may focus on caregiver training, teach compensatory techniques, and introduce adaptive equipment. Alternatively, for patients with a prognosis of independence, therapists may focus on restoring function in daily activities, with goals targeted at improving strength and functional ability. Overall, improved prognostic ability can save both the patient and healthcare system time and resources while maximizing outcomes.

To aid with prognosis, many studies have investigated potential predictors of post-stroke outcome including initial clinical assessment, age, sex, time since stroke, and lesion volume. Meta-analysis shows that the initial motor score is the most significant predictor, while time since stroke, age, sex, and lesion volume do not predict recovery.⁴ The prognostic utility of the initial clinical score for recovery, however, has recently been shown to be spurious.^5,6 Specifically, the effect sizes reported for such findings are likely inflated, meaning the strength of the association between initial scores and recovery may be overly optimistic.⁵

Outcome may be better predicted by neural function (i.e., the integrity of neural function within the residual neural circuits post-stroke).⁷ In particular, electroencephalography (EEG) may be used to assess neural function and predict post-stroke recovery. While other instruments such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)^8-12 and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)¹³ are also used to assess residual neural resources, EEG offers several compelling advantages. First, EEG provides a measure of direct, functional electrical activity of neuronal assembles in the brain that facilitate neuroplastic changes necessary for motor recovery¹⁴ to occur, as opposed to structural MRI or indirect hemodynamic response in the brain measured with fMRI.¹⁵ While EEG has poor spatial resolution compared to MRI, it has superior temporal resolution, capturing millisecond changes in neural activity relevant for function.¹⁵ EEG also offers measurement of multiple aspects, including integrity of the afferent sensory tract^16,17 and the corticospinal tract,¹⁸ as well as local¹⁹ and network²⁰ electrical activity in the cortex, whereas TMS is limited to measures of corticospinal²¹ and corticobulbar²² tract integrity. Furthermore, EEG has no contraindications, while approximately 20% of stroke survivors cannot undergo MRI or TMS due to contraindications such as metal implants in the body.²³ In addition, EEG costs less than MRI, can be performed at bedside unlike MRI, and continuous EEG monitoring is already used in clinical practice for some stroke patients in the acute hospital setting.

Overall, the objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic utility of EEG for post-stroke outcome. Qualitative synthesis of evidence exists in a recent review.²⁴ To further this knowledge, the present paper provides a quantitative synthesis of evidence with a meta-analysis. In addition, the previous review²⁴ examined 25 papers exclusive to acute/subacute stroke (<6 months post-stroke) in 4 outcome domains (i.e., mortality, function, epilepsy, and cognition). In contrast, the present paper synthesized 75 papers pertaining to both acute/subacute and chronic stroke (≥6 months post-stroke) in 9 outcome domains (i.e., independence, stroke severity, upper extremity, speech, whole body sensorimotor, balance/gait, cognition, mortality, and level of consciousness). It is important to consider prognosis in the chronic phase given accumulating evidence showing that neuroplasticity and subsequent recovery extends beyond 1-year post-stroke.²⁵ Through comprehensive qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the literature, we aim to provide an overview of the prognostic potential of EEG in predicting post-stroke outcomes.

Methods

Search Strategy

We followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses²⁶ to examine the prognostic utility of EEG in stroke outcome. A literature search was conducted in PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and CINAHL databases. The search terms used were stroke and electroencephalography or EEG. We developed our search strategy based on consultation with a medical librarian and consideration of the literature. The search included papers published between 1965 and 2021 and was last searched on August 15, 2021.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Systematic Review

I. Publication

a. Inclusion:

i. Peer-reviewed journal paper.

ii. Written in English.II. Study design

a. Inclusion:

i. Papers that acquired EEG for clinical and/or research purposes.

ii. Papers that examined the relationship between baseline EEG and subsequent stroke related clinical outcome measures.

iii. Papers that reported statistical analysis results for prognosis and/or provided data sufficient for independent statistical analysis for prognosis.

b. Exclusion:

i. Meta-analyses, reviews, clinical guidelines, case studies, commentaries, and trial protocols.

ii. Papers that did not measure EEG.

iii. Papers that did not include a clinical outcome measure.

III. Participant characteristics

a. Inclusion:

i. Study participants had a stroke(s) of any type.

Meta-Analysis

I. Outcome measure

a. Inclusion:

i. Outcome measure common in at least 5 papers.

b. Exclusion:

i. Papers that utilized a modified outcome measure (e.g., dichotomization, proportion, and partial items).

II. Statistics

a. Exclusion:

i. Papers did not provide relevant statistics or data needed to calculate relevant statistics, or authors did not provide data upon request.

Screening

Papers were screened by the primary and the senior author independently. Papers were initially screened based on the title and abstract. For papers that met the inclusion criteria based on the title and abstract, full-text papers were obtained and a subsequent screening was performed to determine if the inclusion criteria were met. The senior author completed 25% of the initial abstract screening and 19% of the full-text screening. In cases of discrepancy, resolution was found by a joint re-review of the paper.

Analysis for Systematic Review

Study characteristics were extracted from the selected papers, including patient characteristics, time since stroke, medical treatment, EEG protocol, EEG variable, outcomes, and findings. In addition, methodological quality of the papers was determined according to the modified Downs and Black Checklist.^27-30 The modified version of the checklist^27-30 was used due to the limited number of experimental intervention studies included in this review. Two independent raters determined quality of the papers included in the meta-analysis and one of the raters determined the quality of all remaining papers included in the systematic review.

Findings regarding the relationship between EEG and subsequent outcomes were extracted from each paper. The findings were classified as positive or negative based on the following criteria. (1) Findings with P<.05 were counted as positive and findings with P>.05 were considered as negative for regressions, correlations, odds ratios, t-tests, and ANOVAs. (2) In cases of multiple regression and/or ANOVA with other predictors (e.g., initial clinical score), the finding was considered as positive if EEG contributed to the statistical model. (3) If a P-value was not provided, correlation coefficients or predictive values ≥.6 were considered as positive and findings with <.6 were considered as negative.³¹ Papers were then classified as “positive” if they presented only positive findings for EEG prognosis, “negative” if they presented only negative findings, and “mixed” if they presented both positive and negative findings.

The results of papers were qualitatively examined against study characteristics including sample size, time post-stroke at EEG and at outcome, EEG variable, number of EEG electrodes, outcome domains, and quality score to investigate the association between study characteristics and prognostic results.

Meta-Analysis Method

For each paper, we extracted a correlation coefficient between baseline EEG and a subsequent outcome measure. When an odds ratio was provided instead of a correlation, a transformation to the scale of a correlation coefficient Yule’s Q³² was applied. Two papers^33,34 that examined the same sample of subjects were treated as a single paper in the analysis. Nine papers^33-41 reported EEG and/or outcome measure scores at 2 or more time points. Therefore, we included data at each timepoint. For 13 papers that did not provide the data needed to calculate relevant statistics, the authors were contacted via email. One author responded and provided additional data from which correlation was calculated and included in the meta-analysis.

The correlation coefficient of each paper was then transformed using Fisher transformation for normal distribution.⁴² To estimate an average association between EEG and clinical outcome, a linear meta-regression was performed for each outcome, adjusting for sample size and study quality. Weighted sample size (=√[n/total n of included papers]) and weighted quality scores (=√[score/max possible score]) were used in the analysis. The overall adjusted effect was then calculated by multiplying the estimate of each variable included in the model by its average and adding these values to the regression intercept. In other words, the overall effect was calculated by solving the fitted regression equation for the population average. To account for multiple EEG and/or outcome measure times within a single paper, study ID was included in the analysis as a random effect for all models. Time of EEG, outcome time, time between EEG and outcome, and time post-stroke were adjusted for but did not significantly contribute to any of the regression models and were removed.

Results

Systematic Review

Search results

Results of the literature search and screening are summarized using the PRISMA 2009 flow diagram in Figure 1. A total of 75 papers met inclusion criteria and were synthesized for the systematic review. References for the included papers can be found in Supplement Material A. These 75 papers included a total of 4136 participants’ data, with the average age of participants in each paper ranging from 45 to 76 years. The majority of the papers were published in the last decade (Figure 2A). Of 75, 37 papers reported mixed results (i.e., both positive and negative), 33 only positive, and 5 only negative (Figure 2A). The detailed study information including characteristics of patients, EEG, outcome measures, and quality scores of each paper can be found in Supplement Materials B and A.

Figure 1.

PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.

Figure 2.

The number of papers published examining prognostic utility of EEG for post-stroke outcome over the years (A) and mean EEG times (B). The histograms shows the number of papers for each time period that reported (i) only positive, (ii) only negative, and (iii) mixed (i.e., both positive and negative) findings for EEG-based prognosis of post-stroke outcome. The upper limit of the bin is noted on the horizontal axis (e.g., bins=1981–1990, … , 2011–Aug 2021 in A, 0–1 day, >1–3 days, … in B). The last bar in B includes papers with EEG time ranging from 1 to 9 years post-stroke. Two papers with mixed findings and 4 papers with positive findings did not report the exact EEG time, thus are not included in B.

Time Since Stroke

Over 75% of the papers assessed EEG for prognosis within 1-month post-stroke (Figure 2B). Across all times post-stroke, 70 of the 75 papers found positive or mixed results for the predictive ability of EEG. Interestingly, positive findings were observed not only early post-stroke, but also at later times post-stroke (e.g., 6 months) (Figure 2B). This observation remained in chronic papers that assessed patients ranging from 1 to 8 years post-stroke. One negative prognostic result was found in 1 chronic paper at 9 years post-stroke in a small sample of 4 patients.⁴³

Type of Stroke

Of the 75 papers, 47 included only ischemic stroke and 28 included both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. However, of those that included both types of stroke, no papers compared prognosis between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. Thus, direct comparisons between stroke type could not be made. However, 2 papers compared ischemic stroke subtypes.^44,45 Specifically, 1 study found that for posterior circulation syndrome, EEG within 3 days post-stroke was associated with 1-week stroke severity measured by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) but not independence measured by the Modified Rankin Scale (MRS), while the opposite was seen for lacuna syndrome.⁴⁴ The other study found that EEG within a week post-stroke was predictive of 1-year MRS for both cortical and lacunar syndrome.⁴⁵

Treatment

Of 63 papers with mean EEG time ≤2 months post-stroke, 61 papers followed standard care, which encompassed inpatient hospitalization and/or inpatient rehabilitation therapy. The other 2 papers used a standardized treatment in which all patients received the same dose of a particular treatment (auditory discrimination training⁴⁶ and mechanical endovascular therapy⁴⁷) (Figure 3). The other 12 papers with mean EEG time >2 months post-stroke used a standardized upper extremity treatment including standardized manual motor rehabilitation,^48-52 visuomotor tracking training,⁵³ virtual reality training,⁴³ brain–computer interface training,^39,54 semantic/phonological-based therapy,⁵⁵ and robot assisted therapy.^56,57

Figure 3.

Distribution of papers per study characteristics, including time since stroke, EEG protocol, EEG variable type, outcome domain, and outcome measure shows a lack of uniformity. * Power includes variables reflecting the amount of activity in given frequency bands.¹⁰⁹ †Event related potentials are voltages generated in the brain in response to specific events or stimuli.¹¹⁰ #Epileptiform activity is neural activity specific to epilepsy that occurs during a seizure.¹¹¹ ‡Connectivity represents neuronal oscillations which underly the coordinated flow of information within networks of brain regions.¹¹² ¶Results derived from an EEG analysis that utilized dipole modeling.¹¹³

EEG Protocol

EEG was obtained for both clinical^58-65 (n = 8 papers) and research^{33-41,43-57,66-108} (n = 67 papers) purposes. Of 63 papers with mean EEG time ≤2 months post-stroke, 47 papers obtained EEG during rest, 1 paper obtained EEG during upper limb movement, and 15 papers obtained EEG response to stimuli, the majority being electrical nerve stimulation in 9 papers (Figure 3). The other 12 papers with mean EEG time >2 months post-stroke obtained EEG during rest (n = 6 papers), upper limb movement (n = 5 papers), and response to stimuli (n = 1 paper).

EEG Variables and Outcome

EEG variables used varied considerably across papers. Thus, EEG variables were grouped into power,¹⁰⁹ event related potential,¹¹⁰ epileptiform,¹¹¹ connectivity,¹¹² and dipole-based¹¹³ EEG variable types (Figure 3). Outcome measures also varied considerably across papers, and were, therefore, grouped into outcome domains of independence, stroke severity, upper extremity, speech, (whole body) sensorimotor, balance/gait, cognition, mortality, and level of consciousness (Figure 3).

The positive, mixed, and negative findings were spread across EEG variable types and outcome domains (Figure 4). More than half of papers assessed power (e.g., brain wave oscillation symmetry, delta to alpha power ratio, and peak frequency). As such, power had the most positive and most negative findings. The majority of papers (n = 71 papers) examined a single EEG variable type. Thus, direct comparison of prognostic potential across multiple EEG variable types is limited.

Figure 4.

Distribution of outcome domains and EEG variable types examined. The total sample size for the papers that reported (i) only positive, (ii) only negative, and (iii) mixed findings for EEG-based prognosis of post-stroke outcomes are presented in stacked bars. Papers that examined multiple outcome domains and/or EEG variable types are presented for each result. In addition to the 5 papers that showed negative findings in the previous figure,^{43,61,89,94,98} 3 papers reported negative findings in only some of the multiple outcome domains^35,97 or some of the multiple EEG variable types examined.⁹¹

The most assessed outcome domain was independence (n = 23 papers with the total sample size of 2017, e.g., MRS), followed by stroke severity (n = 22 papers with the total sample size of 858, e.g., NIHSS) (Figure 4). Independence and stroke severity also had the largest number of papers with positive findings (n = 15 and 7 papers, respectively).

Quality Score, Sample Size, EEG to Outcome Time, Number of EEG Electrodes

The quality score ranged from 7 to 15, with a mean+SD = 11 ± 2 points, out of 16 points. To categorize the papers as “good,” “fair,” or “poor” quality, each paper’s quality score was divided by the maximum possible score of 16 to calculate a percentage. Thirty eight papers were found be of “good” quality (≥71%), 30 “fair” (54–70%), and 7 “poor” (≤53%).^27,114 The poor quality was due to absence of variance estimates and/or actual probability values (e.g., reporting <.05 rather than exact P-values) and absence of description or adjustment for confounding variables, such as age and initial clinical score of patients. Poor quality was associated with earlier publication time, as 4 of the 7 poor quality papers were published between 1982 and 1994. Detailed quality score information including the number of points received on each item of the checklist and the total score for each paper can be found in Supplement Material C.

Sample size ranged from 4⁴³ to 459⁶⁵ participants (median = 34 participants). EEG to outcome time ranged from 4 days⁶² to 3 years⁸⁹ (median=2 months). The number of electrodes used ranged from 1^40,73 to 256,^49,53,57 with 19 being the most used.^{33,34,41,46,60,62,63,72,77,78,82-84,90,106,107}

The prognosis results of each paper are plotted against quality score, sample size, EEG to outcome time, and number of EEG electrodes in Figure 5. Papers with negative findings appear to have a combination of a (i) long time period between EEG and outcome measure (e.g., 2–3 years), (ii) low quality score, (iii) low sample size, and (iv) low number of EEG electrodes (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Distribution of the quality score, sample size, EEG to outcome time, and number of EEG electrodes used (denoted by the marker diameter) across papers. Papers that reported (i) only positive, (ii) only negative, and (iii) mixed findings for EEG-based prognosis of post-stroke outcome are presented with the solid, segmented, and dotted lines, respectively. Papers that examined multiple outcome time points are presented for all time points (e.g., 1 study³⁶ reported negative findings for 2 months but positive findings for 6 and 12 month outcomes). Papers that did not report information on EEG or outcome times are not included in this figure.

Prognosis Beyond Conventional Predictors

A total of 28 papers examined if EEG enhanced prognostic ability more than prognosis by the conventional predictor of baseline clinical score. Twenty-one papers found positive results. Specifically, the examined EEG variable(s) significantly explained variance in outcome after controlling for initial clinical score in 8 papers.^{48,59,64,73,83,90,92,107} In 7 papers, EEG further separated patients with good or poor prognosis after the consideration of the initial clinical score.^{38,45,54,65,99,102,104} In 6 papers, EEG correlated with outcome while initial clinical score did not.^{49,52,60,80,81,91} Mixed results were found in 6 papers, where EEG enhanced prognostic ability of conventional predictors only for some EEG variables,^78,84 EEG time,³³ subgroup,⁷² outcome domain,⁷⁴ and analysis method.⁴⁴ A negative result was found in 1 paper, in which only cerebral blood flow, not initial clinical score or EEG, predicted 3-year outcome.⁸⁹

Explorative Investigation

It was evident during the review that the majority of papers involved exploratory investigation. Specifically, 36 papers reported prognostic results for each of multiple EEG variables (e.g., simple correlations), including not only different EEG variable types (e.g., power and connectivity), but also multiple frequency bands (e.g,, delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma), multiple brain regions (e.g., ipsilesional and contralesional), multiple parameters (e.g., amplitude, latency, relative vs absolute power, power ratio, and dipole x, y, and z coordinates), and different tasks during EEG (e.g., eyes open vs close, movement preparation vs execution). In addition, 16 papers used an approach to statistically select a subset of multiple EEG variables for best prognostic results (e.g., stepwise regressions). Further, many papers examined prognostic results for multiple outcome times (n = 10 papers) and multiple outcome domains (n = 13 papers).

Meta-Analysis

Search Results

Results of the meta-analysis screening are summarized using the PRISMA 2009 flow diagram in Figure 1. Of the 75 papers included in the systematic review, 31 papers met the inclusion criteria and were synthesized for the meta-analysis. Quality scores ranged from 8 to 14, with mean + SD = 11 ± 2 out of 16 points. Eighteen papers were found be of “good” quality (≥71%), 12 “fair” (54–70%) quality, and 1 “poor” (≤53%) quality.^27,114 The outcome measures examined were: (1) MRS¹¹⁵ which measures the degree of disability/dependence in daily activities, (2) NIHSS¹¹⁶ which measures stroke severity, and (3) Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment (FMUE)¹¹⁷ which measures upper extremity motor impairment.

Correlation Between EEG and MRS

Eight papers utilized MRS as the outcome measure. These papers presented 15 EEG and MRS correlations (Figure 6A) in a total of 202 participants. All papers assessed the EEG variable type of power. Linear meta-regression of the correlation between baseline EEG and subsequent MRS demonstrated a strong³¹ adjusted effect of .72 (95% CI: .64–.78).

Figure 6.

Forest plots showing correlation coefficients between EEG and outcome with 95% confidence interval for MRS (A), NIHSS (B), and FMUE (C).

Correlation Between EEG and NIHSS

Thirteen papers utilized NIHSS as the outcome measure. These papers presented 17 EEG and NIHSS correlations (Figure 6B) in a total of 533 participants. They included multiple EEG variable types, including power (n = 12 correlations), connectivity (n = 4 correlations), and event related potential (n = 1 correlation). Linear meta-regression of the correlation between baseline EEG and subsequent NIHSS demonstrated a strong³¹ adjusted effect of .70 (95% CI: .66–.74).

Correlation Between EEG and FMUE

Twelve papers utilized FMUE as the outcome measure. These papers presented 15 EEG and FMUE correlations (Figure 6C) in a total of 316 participants. They included multiple EEG variable types, including power (n = 6 correlations), connectivity (n = 6 correlations), and event related potential (n = 3 correlations). Linear meta-regression of the correlation between baseline EEG and subsequent FMUE demonstrated a moderate³¹ adjusted effect of .53 (95% CI: .45–.61).

Discussion

Many papers have examined the prognostic utility of EEG in post-stroke outcome (75 papers for a total of 4136 participants). There has been a steep increase in the number of papers examining the prognostic utility of EEG in the last decade. This increase may be in part due to improvement in the computing resources to analyze EEG efficiently and in novel ways (e.g., connectivity and dipole/source analysis), along with the emergence of high-density EEG systems.

The majority of papers (70/75, 93%) showed all or some positive prognostic potential of EEG for post-stroke outcomes. Main observations are detailed as follows. First, prognostic potential was evident at both the acute and chronic phases post-stroke. While the majority of research has focused on prognosis within a few months post-stroke, there is evidence for chronic stroke patients with mean time post-stroke ranging from 11 months⁵⁰ to 8 years⁵⁶ that EEG is associated with improvement after a subsequent rehabilitation treatment. This evidence is aligned with general evidence of neuroplasticity in chronic stroke.^118,119 This finding is encouraging for the clinical use of EEG for prognosis and may also have implications for participant selection in stroke recovery research studies which includes chronic stroke survivors exclusively in many cases. Stroke recovery research studies often result in findings that a treatment works best for a subset of the study sample. As a future direction, it is possible that EEG may be a useful tool to provide information to explain varying degrees of response to an intervention among individual patients.

Second, direct comparisons were not made between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke types. While initial improvement is greater for hemorrhagic stroke compared to ischemic stroke, the time course of recovery does not differ between the 2 stroke types from 3 months post-stroke.¹²⁰ Despite the difference in etiology and initial severity level, response of the brain to the insult as captured by EEG may be relevant for recovery for both stroke types, although this needs to be empirically tested.

Third, among outcome domains, independence and stroke severity were most studied with the most positive findings (n = 15 and 7 papers, respectively). Meta-analysis also supports the strong relationships between EEG and MRS and between EEG and NIHSS. All papers that examined independence and stroke severity as an outcome were in acute/subacute stroke, with EEG performed on average 5 days post-stroke for both (ranging from a few hours to a month) and outcome measured on average 3- and 4-months post-stroke, respectively (ranging from a week to 1 and 3 years, respectively). Therefore, the translational potential of this evidence to standard acute/subacute stroke care is high, as the majority of the evidence is directly from that setting, involving EEG recording while patients rested.

While some ability of EEG to predict outcomes was seen for all outcomes studied, the results from other outcomes, such as upper extremity, speech, balance/gait, and cognition, were mixed. For all outcomes, besides sensorimotor, there was more evidence to support the predictive ability of EEG than evidence to refute it. In general, more research with methodological rigor is needed to determine the predictive ability of EEG for these outcomes.

Fourth, in over 95% of studies, EEG was able to increase prognostic ability compared to using the conventional predictor of initial clinical score alone. This is a critical point in the potential translation of EEG to routine clinical practice. The addition of EEG, while non-invasive, can be cumbersome and adds to cost of care. Evidence that prognostic ability is improved from what can be attained from standard of care is a critical factor in advocating for the addition of routine EEG in post-stroke patients. The practical extent of the consequences of better prognostic ability will need to be explored. It will be important for clinicians and hospital/clinical managers to ultimately realize a quality and/or cost benefit to the addition of prognostic EEG.

Lastly, prognostic potential was likely obscured due to methodological constraints. Variables such as EEG to outcome time, sample size, and number of EEG electrodes used may all contribute to differences in study results. The variety of EEG measures and lack of standardization also may mask results and hinders comparability of study outcomes. In addition, many studies had fair or poor quality evaluations due in large part to data not being fully reported; some quality issues were methodological in nature and may have influenced study results.

Evidence regarding prognostic utility of EEG is largely explorative. The majority of papers were exploratory in nature and did not have a priori hypothesized EEG variable(s) for prognosis. This explorative nature explains the large number of papers with mixed results due to the variety of EEG measures used. This may also explain the moderate relationship between EEG and FMUE found in the meta-analysis. The FMUE meta-regression model included a more even representation of each EEG measure (i.e., power, connectivity, and event related potential), whereas the MRS and NIHSS meta-regression models focused heavily on a single EEG measure (i.e., power). In general, there is emerging evidence that EEG has the potential to inform clinical decision-making and guide individualized treatment. However, consensus on the best EEG biomarker is needed for clinical translation to occur.

Limitations

Due to publication bias, the prognostic value found in this review may be elevated. However, such bias may have been mitigated since EEG prognosis is typically investigated as a secondary analysis in many papers. In addition, we were conservative in categorizing the results of each paper. Some papers concluded a positive prognostic result, while they were regarded as negative in this review based on the criteria described in the method section. Some papers hypothesized prognosis for one EEG variable and reported negative results for other EEG variable(s) as a negative control, which added to the number of papers with mixed results in this review. Some papers had an objective different from prognosis and happened to report correlations applicable to prognosis. Those results added to the negative results in this review, although these papers may not have chosen an EEG variable best for prognosis. The conservative approach used in this review was to identify a robust biomarker of outcome. The number of papers included in the meta-analysis was reduced because some papers applied outcome measures differently (e.g., dichotomization). This review did not include papers that were published in languages other than English.

Conclusion

Many studies examined the prognostic utility of EEG in post-stroke outcome in the recent decade. Prognostic evidence was seen at both the acute and chronic phases post-stroke, with mean time post-stroke ranging from immediately after the stroke⁴⁷ to 8 years.⁵⁶ The most studied prognostic potential of EEG is in predicting independence and stroke severity in the standard acute/subacute stroke care setting. This finding is also supported by the strong relationships between EEG and MRS and between EEG and NIHSS found in the meta-analysis. Furthermore, there is evidence that EEG improves prognostic ability beyond the conventional predictor of the initial clinical score. However, evidence regarding the prognostic utility of EEG is largely explorative, with many EEG measures used, primarily due to the lack of a definitive set of best EEG variables to use for prognosis. With continued advancement in computing capacity that enables source imaging, machine learning, and analysis efficiency, exploration of EEG biomarkers is expected to continue. In summary, EEG shows potential to improve post-stroke prognostic ability and inform clinical management, with a need to identify the best EEG measures for prognosis.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-nnr-10.1177_15459683221078294 – Supplemental Material for The Prognostic Utility of Electroencephalography in Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-nnr-10.1177_15459683221078294 for The Prognostic Utility of Electroencephalography in Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Amanda A Vatinno, Annie Simpson, Viswanathan Ramakrishnan, Heather S. Bonilha, Leonardo Bonilha and Na Jin Seo in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-nnr-10.1177_15459683221078294 – Supplemental Material for The Prognostic Utility of Electroencephalography in Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-2-nnr-10.1177_15459683221078294 for The Prognostic Utility of Electroencephalography in Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Amanda A Vatinno, Annie Simpson, Viswanathan Ramakrishnan, Heather S. Bonilha, Leonardo Bonilha and Na Jin Seo in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: TThis study was possible through funding from NIH/NIGMS P20 GM109040 COBRE for Stroke Recovery, NIH/NCATS TL1 TR001451 and UL1 TR001450, and NIH/NICHD R01 HD094731.

ORCID iDs

Amanda A Vatinno

Na Jin Seo

Supplementary material for this article is available on the Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair website at .

References

Virani

Alonso

Benjamin

BIttencourt

Callaway

Carson

, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2020 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2020;141(9):e139-e596.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Prevalence and most common causes of disability among adults--United States, 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009;58(16):421-426.

Kent

Soukup

Fabian

. Heterogeneity affecting outcome from acute stroke therapy: making reperfusion worse. Stroke. 2001;32(10):2318-2327.

Coupar

Pollock

Rowe

Weir

Langhorne

. Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(4):291-313.

Hope

Price

Rotshtein

. Recovery after stroke: not so proportional after all? Brain. 2019;142(1):15-22.

Hawe

Scott

Dukelow

. Taking proportional out of stroke recovery. Stroke. 2018;50:118023006.

Stinear

. Prediction of recovery of motor function after stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:1228-1232.

Puig

Pedraza

Blasco

, et al. Acute damage to the posterior limb of the internal capsule on diffusion tensor tractography as an early imaging predictor of motor outcome after stroke. Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32:857-863.

Puig

Blasco

Daunis-I-Estadella

Thomalla

Castellanos

Figueras

, et al. Decreased corticospinal tract fractional anisotropy predicts long-term motor outcome after stroke. Stroke 2013;44(7):2016-2018.

10.

Rehme

Volz

Feis

Eickhoff

Fink

Grefkes

. Individual prediction of chronic motor outcome in the acute post-stroke stage: behavioral parameters versus functional imaging. Hum Brain Mapp. 2015;36(11):4553-4565.

11.

Feng

Wang

Chhatbar

Doughty

Landsittel

Lioutas

V-A

, et al. Corticospinal tract lesion load: an imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann Neurol 2015;78(6):860-870.

12.

Puig

Blasco

Alberich-Bayarri

Schlaug

Deco

Biarnes

, et al. Resting-state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging and outcome after acute stroke. Stroke 2018;49(10):2353-2360.

13.

Bembenek

Kurczych

Karli Nski

Czlonkowska

. The prognostic value of motor-evoked potentials in motor recovery and functional outcome after stroke - a systematic review of the literature. Funct Neurol. 2012;27(2):79-84.

14.

Hosp

Luft

. Cortical plasticity during motor learning and recovery after ischemic stroke. Neural Plast. 2011;2011:871296.

15.

Bunge

Kahn

. Cognition: an overview of neuroimaging techniques. Encycl Neurosci. 2009;2:1063-1067.

16.

Karnaze

Fisher

Ahmadi

Gott

. Short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials correlate with the severity of the neurological deficit and sensory abnormalities following cerebral ischemia. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987;67(2):147-150.

17.

Yamada

Kimura

Nitz

. Short latency somatosensory evoked potentials following median nerve stimulation in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1980;48(4):367-376.

18.

Velázquez-Pérez

Tünnerhoff

Rodríguez-Labrada

Torres-Vega

Ruiz-Gonzalez

Belardinelli

, et al. Early corticospinal tract damage in prodromal SCA2 revealed by EEG-EMG and EMG-EMG coherence. Clin Neurophysiol 2017;128(12):2493-2502.

19.

Manganotti

Gerloff

Toro

Katsuta

Sadato

Zhuang

Leocani

, et al. Task-related coherence and task-related spectral power changes during sequential finger movements. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998;109(1):50-62.

20.

Snyder

Morais

Willis

Smith

. Global network influences on local functional connectivity. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18(5):736-743.

21.

Bembenek

Kurczych

Karliński

Członkowska

. The prognostic value of motor-evoked potentials in motor recovery and functional outcome after stroke–a systematic review of the literature. Funct Neurol. 2012;27(2):79.

22.

Macrae

Jones

Huckabee

. The effect of swallowing treatments on corticobulbar excitability: a review of transcranial magnetic stimulation induced motor evoked potentials. J Neurosci Methods. 2014;233:89-98.

23.

Singer

Sitzer

du Mesnil de Rochemont

Neumann-Haefelin

. Practical limitations of acute stroke MRI due to patient-related problems. Neurology. 2004;62(10):1848-1849.

24.

Doerrfuss

Kilic

Ahmadi

Holtkamp

Weber

. Quantitative and qualitative EEG as a prediction tool for outcome and complications in acute stroke patients. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2020;51(2):121-129.

25.

Ballester

Maier

Duff

Cameirão

Bermúdez

Duarte

, et al. A critical time window for recovery extends beyond one-year post-stroke. J Neurophysiol 2019;122(1):350-357.

26.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

. andPRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.

27.

Seamon

Neptune

Kautz

. Using a module-based analysis framework for investigating muscle coordination during walking in individuals poststroke: a literature review and synthesis. Appl Bionics Biomech. 2018;2018:3795754.

28.

Phillips

McClinton

. Gait deviations associated with plantar heel pain: a systematic review. Clin Biomech. 2017;42:55-64.

29.

Barton

Lack

Malliaras

Morrissey

. Gluteal muscle activity and patellofemoral pain syndrome: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(4):207-214.

30.

Butterworth

Landorf

Smith

Menz

. The association between body mass index and musculoskeletal foot disorders: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2012;13(7):630-642.

31.

Evans

. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Boston, MA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co; 1996.

32.

Yule

. On the methods of measuring association between two attributes. J Roy Stat Soc. 1912;75(6):579.

33.

Cuspineda

Machado

Aubert

Galan

Llopis

Avila

. Predicting outcome in acute stroke: a comparison between QEEG and the Canadian neurological scale. Clin Electroencephalogr. 2003;34(1):1-4.

34.

Cuspineda

Machado

Galan

Aubert

Alvarez

Llopis

, et al. QEEG prognostic value in acute stroke. Clin EEG Neurosci 2007;38(3):155-160.

35.

Pellicciari

Bonni

Ponzo

Cinnera

Mancini

Casula

, et al. Dynamic reorganization of TMS-evoked activity in subcortical stroke patients. Neuroimage 2018;175:365-378.

36.

Feys

Van Hees

Bruyninckx

Mercelis

De Weerdt

. Value of somatosensory and motor evoked potentials in predicting arm recovery after a stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;68(3):323-331.

37.

Sun

Jin

Guo

Qiu

Zhu

, et al. Impaired neuronal synchrony after focal ischemic stroke in elderly patients. Clin Neurophysiol 2011;122(1):21-26.

38.

Sheorajpanday

Nagels

Weeren

van Putten

De Deyn

. Quantitative EEG in ischemic stroke: correlation with functional status after 6 months. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(5):874-883.

39.

Mane

Chew

Phua

, et al. Prognostic and monitory EEG-biomarkers for BCI upper-limb stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019;27(8):1654-1664.

40.

Rogers

Middleton

Wilson

Johnstone

Predicting functional outcomes after stroke: an observational study of acute single-channel EEG. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020;27(3):161-172.

41.

Ajčević

Furlanis

Naccarato

, et al Hyper-acute EEG alterations predict functional and morphological outcomes in thrombolysis-treated ischemic stroke: a wireless EEG study. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2021;59(1):121-129.

42.

Fisher

. On the “Probable Error” of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron. 1921;1:3-32.

43.

Vourvopoulos

Pardo

Lefebvre

, et al Effects of a brain-computer interface with virtual reality (VR) neurofeedback: a pilot study in chronic stroke patients. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019;13:210.

44.

Sheorajpanday

Nagels

Weeren

De Deyn

. Quantitative EEG in ischemic stroke: correlation with infarct volume and functional status in posterior circulation and lacunar syndromes. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(5):884-890.

45.

Cillessen

van Huffelen

Kappelle

Algra

van Gijn

. Electroencephalography improves the prediction of functional outcome in the acute stage of cerebral ischemia. Stroke. 1994;25(10):1968-1972.

46.

Giaquinto

Fraioli

. Enhancement of the somatosensory N140 component during attentional training after stroke. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003;114(2):329-335.

47.

Shiban

Wunderlich

Kreiser

Lehmberg

Hemmer

Prothmann

, et al. Predictive value of transcranial evoked potentials during mechanical endovascular therapy for acute ischaemic stroke: a feasibility study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016;87(6):598-603.

48.

Platz

Kim

Engel

Kieselbach

Mauritz

. Brain activation pattern as assessed with multi-modal EEG analysis predict motor recovery among stroke patients with mild arm paresis who receive the Arm Ability Training. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2002;20(1-2):21-35.

49.

Quinlan

Dodakian

McKenzie

Kathuria

Zhou

, et al. Connectivity measures are robust biomarkers of cortical function and plasticity after stroke. Brain 2015;138(Pt 8):2359-2369.

50.

Chen

Lee

Wang

Lin

. EEG-based motor network biomarkers for identifying target patients with stroke for upper limb rehabilitation and its construct validity. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178822.

51.

Philips

Daly

Principe

. Topographical measures of functional connectivity as biomarkers for post-stroke motor recovery. J NeuroEng Rehabil. 2017;14(1):67.

52.

Roh

Wang

Zhang

. Multimodal neuroimaging using concurrent EEG/fNIRS for poststroke recovery assessment: an exploratory study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020;34(12):1099-1110.

53.

Zhou

Hondori

Khademi

Cassidy

Yang

, et al. Predicting gains with visuospatial training after stroke using an EEG measure of frontoparietal circuit function. Front Neurol 2018;9:597.

54.

Carino-Escobar

Valdés-Cristerna

Carrillo-Mora

, et al. Prognosis of stroke upper limb recovery with physiological variables using regression tree ensembles. J Neural Eng 2021;18(4):046057.

55.

Iyer

Angwin

Van Hees

McMahon

Breakspear

Copland

Alterations to dual stream connectivity predicts response to aphasia therapy following stroke. Cortex. 2020;125:30-43.

56.

Trujillo

Mastropietro

Scano

Chiavenna

Mrakic-Sposta

Caimmi

, et al. Quantitative EEG for predicting upper limb motor recovery in chronic stroke robot-assisted rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2017;25(7):1058-1067.

57.

Ingemanson

Rowe

Chan

Wolbrecht

Reinkensmeyer

Cramer

Somatosensory system integrity explains differences in treatment response after stroke. Neurology. 2019;92(10):e1098-e1108.

58.

Xin

Gao

Zhang

Cao

Shi

. Correlation of continuous electroencephalogram with clinical assessment scores in acute stroke patients. Neurosci Bull. 2012;28(5):611-617.

59.

Xin

Chang

Gao

Shi

. Correlation between the revised brain symmetry index, an EEG feature index, and short-term prognosis in acute ischemic stroke. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;34(2):162-167.

60.

Diedler

Sykora

Juttler

Veltkamp

Steiner

Rupp

. EEG power spectrum to predict prognosis after hemicraniectomy for space-occupying middle cerebral artery infarction. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010;29(2):162-169.

61.

Onder

Arsava

Topcuoglu

Dericioglu

. Do video-EEG monitoring findings in ICU patients with acute stroke predict development of seizures and survival during follow-up? Clin EEG Neurosci. 2017;48(6):417-421.

62.

Wolf

Ebert

Chatzikonstantinou

. The use of routine EEG in acute ischemic stroke patients without seizures: generalized but not focal EEG pathology is associated with clinical deterioration. Int J Neurosci. 2017;127(5):421-426.

63.

Sinkin

Kaimovsky

Komoltsev

Trifonov

Shtekleyn

Tsygankova

Guekht

Electroencephalography in the acute phase of stroke. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 2021;51(5):559-564.

64.

Tabaeizadeh

Nour

Shoukat

, et al. Burden of epileptiform activity predicts discharge neurologic outcomes in severe acute ischemic stroke. Neurocrit Care. 2020;32(3):697-706.

65.

Anadani

Lekoubou

, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of early seizures after mechanical thrombectomy. J Neurol Sci. 2019;396:235-239.

66.

Finnigan

Rose

Walsh

Griffin

Janke

McMahon

, et al. Correlation of quantitative EEG in acute ischemic stroke with 30-day NIHSS score: comparison with diffusion and perfusion MRI. Stroke 2004;35(4):899-903.

67.

Song

Zang

D-W

Jin

Y-Y

Wang

Z-J

H-Y

Yin

J-Z

, et al. Background rhythm frequency and theta power of quantitative EEG analysis: predictive biomarkers for cognitive impairment post-cerebral infarcts. Clin EEG Neurosci 2015;46(2):142-146.

68.

Burghaus

Hilker

Dohmen

Bosche

Winhuisen

Galldiks

, et al. Early electroencephalography in acute ischemic stroke: prediction of a malignant course? Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2007;109(1):45-49.

69.

Burghaus

Liu

Dohmen

Haupt

Fink

Eggers

. Prognostic value of electroencephalography and evoked potentials in the early course of malignant middle cerebral artery infarction. Neurol Sci. 2013;34(5):671-678.

70.

Juhasz

Kamondi

Szirmai

. Spectral EEG analysis following hemispheric stroke: evidences of transhemispheric diaschisis. Acta Neurol Scand. 1997;96(6):397-400.

71.

Gur

Neufeld

Treves

Aronovich

Bornstein

Korczyn

. EEG as predictor of dementia following first ischemic stroke. Acta Neurol Scand. 1994;90(4):263-265.

72.

Lima

Ricardo

JAG

Coan

Soriano

Avelar

Min

. Electroencephalography patterns and prognosis in acute ischemic stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017;44(3-4):128-134.

73.

Aminov

Rogers

Johnstone

Middleton

Wilson

. Acute single channel EEG predictors of cognitive function after stroke. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0185841.

74.

Sheorajpanday

Nagels

Weeren

De Surgeloose

De Deyn

. Additional value of quantitative EEG in acute anterior circulation syndrome of presumed ischemic origin. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;121(10):1719-1725.

75.

Finocchi

Gandolfo

Gasparetto

Del Sette

Croce

Loeb

. Value of early variables as predictors of short-term outcome in patients with acute focal cerebral ischemia. Ital J Neurol Sci. 1996;17(5):341-346.

76.

Finnigan

Walsh

Rose

Chalk

. Quantitative EEG indices of sub-acute ischaemic stroke correlate with clinical outcomes. Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;118(11):2525-2532.

77.

Schleiger

Sheikh

Rowland

Wong

Read

Finnigan

. Frontal EEG delta/alpha ratio and screening for post-stroke cognitive deficits: the power of four electrodes. Int J Psychophysiol. 2014;94(1):19-24.

78.

Schleiger

Wong

Read

Rowland

Finnigan

. Poststroke QEEG informs early prognostication of cognitive impairment. Psychophysiology. 2017;54(2):301-309.

79.

Wang

Chen

Yang

Q-L

H-L

, et al. Early prediction of poor outcome in severe hemispheric stroke by EEG patterns and gradings. Neurol Res 2013;35(5):512-516.

80.

Zhang

Haupt

Zhao

Xiao

, et al. Application of electrophysiologic techniques in poor outcome prediction among patients with severe focal and diffuse ischemic brain injury. J Clin Neurophysiol 2011;28(5):497-503.

81.

Zhang

Xiao

Chen

Zhao

. Predicting comatose patients with acute stroke outcome using middle-latency somatosensory evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(8):1645-1649.

82.

Zappasodi

Olejarczyk

Marzetti

Assenza

Pizzella

Tecchio

. Fractal dimension of EEG activity senses neuronal impairment in acute stroke. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e100199.

83.

Zappasodi

Croce

Giordani

Assenza

Giannantoni

Profice

, et al. Prognostic value of EEG microstates in acute stroke. Brain Topogr 2017;30(5):698-710.

84.

Assenza

Zappasodi

Pasqualetti

Vernieri

Tecchio

. A contralesional EEG power increase mediated by interhemispheric disconnection provides negative prognosis in acute stroke. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2013;31(2):177-188.

85.

Jabbari

Maulsby

Holtzapple

Marshall

. Prognostic value of EEG in acute vascular aphasia: a long term clinical-EEG study of 53 patients. Clin Electroencephalogr. 1979;10(4):190-197.

86.

Pavot

Ignacio

Kuntavanish

Lightfoote

2nd . The prognostic value of somatosensory evoked potentials in cerebrovascular accidents. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1986;26(5-6):333-340.

87.

Rojas Sosa

Fraire Martinez

Olvera Gomez

Jauregui-Renaud

. Early auditory middle latency evoked potentials correlates with recovery from aphasia after stroke. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(1):136-139.

88.

Kovala

. Prognostic significance of somatosensory potentials evoked by stimulation of the median and posterior tibial nerves: a prospective 1-year follow-up study in patients with supratentorial cerebral infarction. Eur Neurol. 1991;31(3):141-148.

89.

De Weerd

Veldhuizen

Veering

Poortvliet

Jonkman

. Recovery from cerebral ischaemia. EEG, cerebral blood flow and clinical symptomatology in the first three years after a stroke. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1988;70(3):197-204.

90.

Szelies

Mielke

Kessler

Heiss

. Prognostic relevance of quantitative topographical EEG in patients with poststroke aphasia. Brain Lang. 2002;82(1):87-94.

91.

Nicolo

Rizk

Magnin

Pietro

Schnider

Guggisberg

. Coherent neural oscillations predict future motor and language improvement after stroke. Brain. 2015;138(Pt 10):3048-3060.

92.

Guggisberg

Nicolo

Cohen

Schnider

Buch

. Longitudinal structural and functional differences between proportional and poor motor recovery after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(12):1029-1041.

93.

Fierro

La Bua

Oliveri

Daniele

Brighina

. Prognostic value of somatosensory evoked potentials in stroke. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;39(3):155-160.

94.

Veering

Jonkman

Poortvliet

De Weerd

Tans

John

. The effect of reconstructive vascular surgery on clinical status, quantitative EEG and cerebral blood flow in patients with cerebral ischaemia. A three month follow-up study in operated and unoperated stroke patients. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1986;64(5):383-393.

95.

Agius Anastasi

Falzon

Camilleri

Vella

Muscat

. Brain symmetry index in healthy and stroke patients for assessment and prognosis. Stroke Res Treat. 2017;2017:8276136.

96.

Stojanovic

Djurasic

Jovic

Paspalj

. EEG study of visual reactivity in aphasic patients. Acta Chir Iugosl. 2013;60(3):45-56.

97.

Capon

. Quantitative EEG with brain mapping in strokes: is it useful for prognosis? Brain Topogr. 1996;9(2):77-82.

98.

Hensel

Rockstroh

Berg

Elbert

Schonle

. Left-hemispheric abnormal EEG activity in relation to impairment and recovery in aphasic patients. Psychophysiology. 2004;41(3):394-400.

99.

La Joie

Reddy

Melvin

. Somatosensory evoked potentials: their predictive value in right hemiplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982;63(5):223-226.

100.

Ehlers

Lopez Herrero

Kastrup

Hildebrandt

. The P300 in middle cerebral artery strokes or hemorrhages: outcome predictions and source localization. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015;126(8):1532-1538.

101.

Jiang

Liu

Chen

Gao

. Predicting the non-survival outcome of large hemispheric infarction patients via quantitative electroencephalography: superiority to visual electroencephalography and the Glasgow coma scale. Neurosci Lett. 2019;706:88-92.

102.

Tscherpel

Dern

Hensel

Ziemann

Fink

Grefkes

. Brain responsivity provides an individual readout for motor recovery after stroke. Brain. 2020;143(6):1873-1888.

103.

Wilkinson

Burrell

Kuziek

JWP

Thirunavukkarasu

Buck

Mathewson

. Predicting stroke severity with a 3-min recording from the Muse portable EEG system for rapid diagnosis of stroke. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):18465.

104.

Saes

Meskers

CGM

Daffertshofer

van Wegen

EEH

Kwakkel

. Are early measured resting-state EEG parameters predictive for upper limb motor impairment six months poststroke? Clin Neurophysiol. 2021;132(1):56-62.

105.

Vecchio

Tomino

Miraglia

, et al. Cortical connectivity from EEG data in acute stroke: a study via graph theory as a potential biomarker for functional recovery. Int J Psychophysiol. 2019;146:133-138.

106.

Zappasodi

Pasqualetti

Rossini

Tecchio

. Acute phase neuronal activity for the prognosis of stroke recovery. Neural Plast. 2019;2019:1971875.

107.

Kawano

Noriaki

Uno

, et al. Electroencephalographic phase synchrony index as a biomarker of poststroke motor impairment and recovery. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020;34(8):711-722.

108.

Hoshino

Oguchi

Inoue

Hoshino

Hoshiyama

. Relationship between upper limb function and functional neural connectivity among motor related-areas during recovery stage after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020;27(1):57-66.

109.

Nunez

. SR. Electrical fields of the brain. 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005.

110.

Blackwood

Muir

. Cognitive brain potentials and their application. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1990;157(9):96-101.

111.

Westmoreland

. Epileptiform electroencephalographic patterns. Mayo Clin Proc. 1996;71(5):501-511.

112.

Bastos

Schoffelen

. A tutorial review of functional connectivity analysis methods and their interpretational pitfalls. Front Syst Neurosci. 2015;9:175.

113.

Michel

Brunet

. EEG source imaging: a practical review of the analysis steps. Front Neurol. 2019;10:325.

114.

Terry

Hing

Orr

Milne

. Do coursework summative assessments predict clinical performance? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17:40.

115.

van Swieten

Koudstaal

Visser

Schouten

van Gijn

. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19(5):604-607.

116.

Brott

Adams

Jr. Olinger

Marler

Barsan

Biller

, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke 1989;20(7):864-870.

117.

Fugl-Meyer

Jaasko

Leyman

Olsson

Steglind

. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31.

118.

Carey

Seitz

. Functional neuroimaging in stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation: conceptual issues and perspectives. Int J Stroke. 2007;2(4):245-264.

119.

Murphy

Corbett

. Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(12):861-872.

120.

Bhalla

Wang

Rudd

Wolfe

. Differences in outcome and predictors between ischemic and intracerebral hemorrhage: the South London stroke register. Stroke. 2013;44(8):2174-2181.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.57 MB

0.22 MB