OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and summarize the current available literature on prognostic variables relating to upper limb recovery following stroke. To identify which, if any variables predict upper limb recovery following stroke. DATA SOURCES: We completed searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Searches were completed in November 2010. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if predictor variables were measured at baseline and linked to an outcome of upper limb recovery at a future time point. Exclusion criteria included predictor variables relating to response to treatment and outcome measurements of very specific upper limb impairments such as spasticity or pain. Two independent reviewers completed data extraction and assessed study quality. RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Predictor variables which have been considered within these studies include; age, sex, lesion site, initial motor impairment, motor-evoked potentials and somatosensory-evoked potentials. Initial measures of upper limb impairment and function were found to be the most significant predictors of upper limb recovery; odds ratio 14.84 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 9.08-24.25) and 38.62 (95% CI 8.40-177.53), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of these results is complicated by methodological factors including variations in study populations, upper limb motor outcome scales, timing of baseline and outcome assessments and predictors selected. The most important predictive factors for upper limb recovery following stroke appears to the initial severity of motor impairment or function.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and summarize the current available literature on prognostic variables relating to upper limb recovery following stroke. To identify which, if any variables predict upper limb recovery following stroke. DATA SOURCES: We completed searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Searches were completed in November 2010. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if predictor variables were measured at baseline and linked to an outcome of upper limb recovery at a future time point. Exclusion criteria included predictor variables relating to response to treatment and outcome measurements of very specific upper limb impairments such as spasticity or pain. Two independent reviewers completed data extraction and assessed study quality. RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Predictor variables which have been considered within these studies include; age, sex, lesion site, initial motor impairment, motor-evoked potentials and somatosensory-evoked potentials. Initial measures of upper limb impairment and function were found to be the most significant predictors of upper limb recovery; odds ratio 14.84 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 9.08-24.25) and 38.62 (95% CI 8.40-177.53), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of these results is complicated by methodological factors including variations in study populations, upper limb motor outcome scales, timing of baseline and outcome assessments and predictors selected. The most important predictive factors for upper limb recovery following stroke appears to the initial severity of motor impairment or function.
Authors: Jennifer K Ferris; Sue Peters; Katlyn E Brown; Katherine Tourigny; Lara A Boyd Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Carmen M Cirstea; Phil Lee; Sorin C Craciunas; In-Young Choi; Joseph E Burris; Randolph J Nudo Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Josep Puig; Gerard Blasco; Gottfried Schlaug; Cathy M Stinear; Pepus Daunis-I-Estadella; Carles Biarnes; Jaume Figueras; Joaquín Serena; Maria Hernández-Pérez; Angel Alberich-Bayarri; Mar Castellanos; David S Liebeskind; Andrew M Demchuk; Bijoy K Menon; Götz Thomalla; Kambiz Nael; Max Wintermark; Salvador Pedraza Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 2.804