Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-7
Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable
Finding, testing and demonstrating efficacy of new treatments for stroke recovery is a multifaceted challenge. We believe that to advance the field, neurorehabilitation trials need a conceptually rigorous starting framework. An essential first step is to agree on definitions of sensorimotor recovery and on measures consistent with these definitions. Such standardization would allow pooling of participant data across studies and institutions aiding meta-analyses of completed trials, more detailed exploration of recovery profiles of our patients and the generation of new hypotheses. Here, we present the results of a consensus meeting about measurement standards and patient characteristics that we suggest should be collected in all future stroke recovery trials. Recommendations are made considering time post stroke and are aligned with the international classification of functioning and disability. A strong case is made for addition of kinematic and kinetic movement quantification. Further work is being undertaken by our group to form consensus on clinical predictors and pre-stroke clinical data that should be collected, as well as recommendations for additional outcome measurement tools. To improve stroke recovery trials, we urge the research community to consider adopting our recommendations in their trial design.
AliMEnglishCBernhardtJSunnerhagenKSBradyMCollaborationVI-R. More outcomes than trials: a call for consistent data collection across stroke rehabilitation trials. Int J Stroke2013; 8: 18–24.
2.
PollockAFarmerSEBradyMC. Cochrane Overview interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Stroke2015; 46: E57–E58.
3.
VeerbeekJMKwakkelGvan WegenEEHKetJCFHeymansMW. Early Prediction of outcome of activities of daily living after stroke: a systematic review. Stroke2011; 42: 1482–1488.
4.
WintersCHeymansMWvan WegenEEKwakkelG. How to design clinical rehabilitation trials for the upper paretic limb early post stroke?Trials2016; 17: 468.
5.
BergAPalomakiHLehtihalmesMLonnqvistJKasteM. Poststroke depression: an 18-month follow-up. Stroke2003; 34: 138–143.
6.
PongmoragotJLeeDSParkTHFangJAustinPCSaposnikG. Stroke and heart failure: clinical features, access to care, and outcomes. J Stroke Cerebrovas Dis2016; 25: 1048–1056.
7.
BernhardtJBorschmannKBoydL. Moving rehabilitation research forward: developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research. Int J Stroke2016; 11: 454–458.
8.
SalinasJSprinkhuizenSMAckersonT. An international standard set of patient-centered outcome measures after stroke. Stroke2016; 47: 180–186.
9.
WallaceSJWorrallLRoseTLe DorzeG. Measuring outcomes in aphasia research: a review of current practice and an agenda for standardisation. Aphasiology2014; 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.
LevinMFKleimJAWolfSL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke?Neurorehab Neural Repair2009; 23: 313–319.
UtleyMGallivanSMillsMMasonMHargravesC. A consensus process for identifying a prioritised list of study questions. Health Care Manage Sci2007; 10: 105–110.
16.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBPatrickDL. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res2010; 19: 539–549.
17.
BernhardtJRaffeltAChurilovL. Exploring threats to generalisability in a large international rehabilitation trial (AVERT). BMJ Open2015; 5: e008378.
18.
WolfSLWinsteinCJMillerJP. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: the EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA2006; 296: 2095–2104.
19.
KwakkelGWintersCvan WegenEEH. Effects of unilateral upper limb training in two distinct prognostic groups early after stroke: the explicit-stroke randomized clinical trial. Neurorehab Neural Repair2016; 30: 804–816.
HollowayRGArnoldRMCreutzfeldtCJ. Palliative and end-of-life care in stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke2014; 45: 1887–18916.
22.
DemaerschalkBMKleindorferDOAdeoyeOM. 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. Stroke2016; 47: 581–641.
23.
KatzanILSpertusJBettgerJP. Risk adjustment of ischemic stroke outcomes for comparing hospital performance: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke2014; 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.
MacmahonSRodgersA. The epidemiological association between blood pressure and stroke - implications for primary and secondary prevention. Hypertens Res1994; 17(Suppl 1): S23–S32.
26.
TuomilehtoJRastenyteDJousilahtiPSartiCVartiainenE. Diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for death from stroke - Prospective study of the middle-aged Finnish population. Stroke1996; 27: 210–215.
27.
KisselaBLindsellCJKleindorferD. Clinical prediction of functional outcome after ischemic stroke the surprising importance of periventricular white matter disease and race. Stroke2009; 40: 530–536.
28.
LeeCDFolsomARBlairSN. Physical activity and stroke risk – a meta-analysis. Stroke2003; 34: 2475–2481.
29.
O'DonnellMJChinSLRangarajanS. Global and regional effects of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with acute stroke in 32 countries (INTERSTROKE): a case-control study. Lancet2016; 388: 761–775.
30.
LeePHMacfarlaneDJLamTHStewartSM. Validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF): a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activ2011; 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.
KwakkelGVeerbeekJMvan WegenEEWolfSL. Constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke. Lancet Neurol2015; 14: 224–234.
33.
van KordelaarJvan WegenEENijlandRHDaffertshoferAKwakkelG. Understanding adaptive motor control of the paretic upper limb early poststroke: the EXPLICIT-stroke program. Neurorehab Neural Repair2013; 27: 854–863.
34.
SantistebanLTeremetzMBletonJPBaronJCMaierMALindbergPG. Upper Limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. Plos One2016; 11: e0154792.
35.
NordinNXieSQWunscheB. Assessment of movement quality in robot- assisted upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review. J Neuroeng Rehab2014; 11: 137.
36.
PattersonKKGageWHBrooksDBlackSEMcIlroyWE. Evaluation of gait symmetry after stroke: a comparison of current methods and recommendations for standardization. Gait Posture2010; 31: 241–246.
37.
PeltonTvan VlietPHollandsK. Interventions for improving coordination of reach to grasp following stroke: a systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthcare2012; 10: 89–102.
38.
EllisMDSukal-MoultonTDewaldJPA. Progressive Shoulder abduction loading is a crucial element of arm rehabilitation in chronic stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair2009; 23: 862–869.
39.
CirsteaMCLevinMF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain2000; 123: 940–953.
40.
CirsteaMLevinM. Improvement of arm movement patterns and endpoint control depends on type of feedback during practice in stroke survivors. Neurorehab Neural Repair2007; 21: 398–411.
41.
KitagoTKrakauerJW. Motor learning principles for neurorehabilitation. Handb Clin Neurol2013; 110: 93–103.
42.
van KordelaarJvan WegenEKwakkelG. Impact of time on quality of motor control of the paretic upper limb after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehab2014; 95: 338–344.
43.
LehrerNAttygalleSWolfSLRikakisT. 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 Rehabi2011; 8: 51.
44.
LehrerNChenYPDuffMWolfSLRikakisT. Exploring the bases for a mixed reality stroke rehabilitation system, Part II: design of Interactive Feedback for upper limb rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehab2011; 8: 54.
45.
van VlietPMSheridanMR. Ability to adjust reach extent in the hemiplegic arm. Physiotherapy2009; 95: 176–184.
46.
van VlietPPeltonTAHollandsKLCareyLWingAM. Neuroscience findings on coordination of reaching to grasp an object: implications for research. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2013; 27: 622–635.
47.
WuCYChouSHKuoMYChenCLLuTWFuYC. Effects of object size on intralimb and interlimb coordination during a bimanual prehension task in patients with left cerebral vascular accidents. Motor Control2008; 12: 296–310.
48.
KamperDGMcKenna-ColeANKahnLEReinkensmeyerDJ. Alterations in reaching after stroke and their relation to movement direction and impairment severity. Arch Phys Med Rehab2002; 83: 702–707.
49.
GeurtsACde HaartMvan NesIJDuysensJ. A review of standing balance recovery from stroke. Gait Posture2005; 22: 267–281.
50.
de HaartMGeurtsACHuidekoperSCFasottiLvan LimbeekJ. Recovery of standing balance in postacute stroke patients: a rehabilitation cohort study. Arch Phys Med Rehab2004; 85: 886–895.
51.
van AsseldonkEHBuurkeJHBloemBR. Disentangling the contribution of the paretic and non-paretic ankle to balance control in stroke patients. Exp Neurol2006; 201: 441–451.
52.
SchepersHMvan AsseldonkEHFBuurkeJHVeltinkPH. Ambulatory Estimation of center of mass displacement during walking. IEEE T Bio Med Eng2009; 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.
SeeJDodakianLChouC. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehab Neural Repair2013; 27: 732–741.
55.
Therapeutic Goods Administration. Note for guidance on good clinical practice (CPMP/ICH/135/95) Annotated with TGA comments, 2000.
56.
SposatoLAOvbiageleBJohnstonSCFisherMSaposnikGGrpSORW. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at stroke. Ann Neurol2014; 76: 151–158.
57.
BentleyPKumarGRinneP. Lesion locations influencing baseline severity and early recovery in ischaemic stroke. EurJ Neurol2014; 21: 1226–1232.
58.
ParkTHSaposnikGBaeHJ. The iScore predicts functional outcome in korean patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke2013; 44: 1440–1442.
59.
SaposnikGKapralMKLiuY. IScore a risk score to predict death early after hospitalization for an acute ischemic stroke. Circulation2011; 123: 739–U172.
60.
TsengMCChangKC. Stroke severity and early recovery after first-ever ischemic stroke: results of a hospital-based study in Taiwan. Health Policy2006; 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.
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.
