Literature DB >> 22689909

The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke.

Cathy M Stinear1, P Alan Barber, Matthew Petoe, Samir Anwar, Winston D Byblow.   

Abstract

Stroke is a leading cause of adult disability and the recovery of motor function is important for independence in activities of daily living. Predicting motor recovery after stroke in individual patients is difficult. Accurate prognosis would enable realistic rehabilitation goal-setting and more efficient allocation of resources. The aim of this study was to test and refine an algorithm for predicting the potential for recovery of upper limb function after stroke. Forty participants were prospectively enrolled within 3 days of ischaemic stroke. First, shoulder abduction and finger extension strength were graded 72 h after stroke onset to compute a shoulder abduction and finger extension score. Secondly, transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to assess the functional integrity of descending motor pathways to the affected upper limb. Third, diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was used to assess the structural integrity of the posterior limbs of the internal capsules. Finally, these measures were combined in the PREP algorithm for predicting an individual's potential for upper limb recovery at 12 weeks, measured with the Action Research Arm Test. A cluster analysis was used to independently group patients according to Action Research Arm Test score at 12 weeks, for comparison with predictions from the PREP algorithm. There was excellent correspondence between the cluster analysis of Action Research Arm Test score at 12 weeks and predictions made with the PREP algorithm. The algorithm had positive predictive power of 88%, negative predictive power of 83%, specificity of 88% and sensitivity of 73%. This study provides preliminary data in support of the PREP algorithm for the prognosis of upper limb recovery in individual patients. PREP may enable tailored planning of rehabilitation and more accurate stratification of patients in clinical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22689909     DOI: 10.1093/brain/aws146

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain        ISSN: 0006-8950            Impact factor:   13.501


  156 in total

1.  Inhibition versus facilitation of contralesional motor cortices in stroke: Deriving a model to tailor brain stimulation.

Authors:  Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Andre G Machado; Adriana B Conforto; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; David A Cunningham; Nicole M Varnerin; Xiaofeng Wang; Ken Sakaie; Ela B Plow
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  Poststroke Impairment and Recovery Are Predicted by Task-Specific Regionalization of Injury.

Authors:  Matthew S Jeffers; Boris Touvykine; Allyson Ripley; Gillian Lahey; Anthony Carter; Numa Dancause; Dale Corbett
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Exploring the impact of visual and movement based priming on a motor intervention in the acute phase post-stroke in persons with severe hemiparesis of the upper extremity.

Authors:  Jigna Patel; Qinyin Qiu; Mathew Yarossi; Alma Merians; Supriya Massood; Eugene Tunik; Sergei Adamovich; Gerard Fluet
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 3.033

4.  A Human-machine-interface Integrating Low-cost Sensors with a Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation System for Post-stroke Balance Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Deepesh Kumar; Abhijit Das; Uttama Lahiri; Anirban Dutta
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 1.355

5.  Serial treatments of primed low-frequency rTMS in stroke: characteristics of responders vs. nonresponders.

Authors:  James R Carey; Huiqiong Deng; Bernadette T Gillick; Jessica M Cassidy; David C Anderson; Lei Zhang; William Thomas
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 6.  Imaging in StrokeNet: Realizing the Potential of Big Data.

Authors:  David S Liebeskind; Gregory W Albers; Karen Crawford; Colin P Derdeyn; Mark S George; Yuko Y Palesch; Arthur W Toga; Steven Warach; Wenle Zhao; Thomas G Brott; Ralph L Sacco; Pooja Khatri; Jeffrey L Saver; Steven C Cramer; Steven L Wolf; Joseph P Broderick; Max Wintermark
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Low-Frequency Oscillations Are a Biomarker of Injury and Recovery After Stroke.

Authors:  Jessica M Cassidy; Anirudh Wodeyar; Jennifer Wu; Kiranjot Kaur; Ashley K Masuda; Ramesh Srinivasan; Steven C Cramer
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2020-04-17       Impact factor: 7.914

8.  Individual prediction of chronic motor outcome in the acute post-stroke stage: Behavioral parameters versus functional imaging.

Authors:  Anne K Rehme; Lukas J Volz; Delia-Lisa Feis; Simon B Eickhoff; Gereon R Fink; Christian Grefkes
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 5.038

9.  Comparing prognostic strength of acute corticospinal tract injury measured by a new diffusion tensor imaging based template approach versus common approaches.

Authors:  Kelsi K Hirai; Benjamin N Groisser; William A Copen; Aneesh B Singhal; Judith D Schaechter
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 2.390

10.  Corticospinal tract lesion load: An imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes.

Authors:  Wuwei Feng; Jasmine Wang; Pratik Y Chhatbar; Christopher Doughty; Douglas Landsittel; Vasileios-Arsenios Lioutas; Steven A Kautz; Gottfried Schlaug
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2015-10-31       Impact factor: 10.422

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.