Literature DB >> 27498680

How to Measure Recovery? Revisiting Concepts and Methods for Stroke Studies.

Marc Hommel1,2, Olivier Detante3, Isabelle Favre3, Emmanuel Touzé4, Assia Jaillard5,6.   

Abstract

In clinical trials, assessing efficacy is based on validated scales, and the primary endpoint is usually based on a single scale. The aim of the review is to revisit the concepts and methods to design and analyze studies focused on restoration, recovery and or compensation. These studies are becoming more frequent with the development of restorative medicine. After discussing the definitions of recovery, we address the concept of recovery as the regain of lost capabilities, when the patient reaches a new equilibrium. Recovery is a dynamic process which assessment includes information from initial and final status, their difference, the difference between the final status of the patient and normality, and the speed of restoration. Finally, recovery can be assessed either for a specific function (focal restoration) or for a more global restoration. A single scale is not able to assess all the facets of a skill or a function, therefore complementary information should be collected and analyzed simultaneously to be tested in a single analysis. We are suggesting that recovery should be considered as a latent variable and therefore cannot be measured in pure form. We are also suggesting to customize the data collection and analysis according to the characteristics of the subjects, the mechanisms of action and consequences of the intervention. Moreover, recovery trials should benefit from latent variable analysis methods. Structural equation modeling is likely the best candidate for this approach applicable in pre-clinical and clinical studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical scale; Intervention evaluation; Latent variable; Methodology; Modeling; Study design

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27498680     DOI: 10.1007/s12975-016-0488-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Stroke Res        ISSN: 1868-4483            Impact factor:   6.829


  50 in total

1.  Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. II. Prognosis.

Authors:  J RANKIN
Journal:  Scott Med J       Date:  1957-05       Impact factor: 0.729

Review 2.  Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation.

Authors:  K Salter; J W Jutai; R Teasell; N C Foley; J Bitensky; M Bayley
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2005-05-06       Impact factor: 3.033

Review 3.  Understanding upper limb recovery after stroke.

Authors:  Floor Buma; Gert Kwakkel; Nick Ramsey
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 4.  Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: a systematic review.

Authors:  Terence J Quinn; Jesse Dawson; Matthew R Walters; Kennedy R Lees
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 7.914

5.  Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients.

Authors:  J C van Swieten; P J Koudstaal; M C Visser; H J Schouten; J van Gijn
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 7.914

6.  Thrombolysis is associated with consistent functional improvement across baseline stroke severity: a comparison of outcomes in patients from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA).

Authors:  Nishant K Mishra; Patrick Lyden; James C Grotta; Kennedy R Lees
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke.

Authors: 
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-12-14       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Both compensation and recovery of skilled reaching following small photothrombotic stroke to motor cortex in the rat.

Authors:  Seong-Keun Moon; Mariam Alaverdashvili; Albert R Cross; Ian Q Whishaw
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  2009-05-03       Impact factor: 5.330

9.  Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of thrombolytic therapy with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke (ECASS II). Second European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study Investigators.

Authors:  W Hacke; M Kaste; C Fieschi; R von Kummer; A Davalos; D Meier; V Larrue; E Bluhmki; S Davis; G Donnan; D Schneider; E Diez-Tejedor; P Trouillas
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-10-17       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  An improved method for simple, assumption-free ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin Scale using generalized odds ratios.

Authors:  Leonid Churilov; Sarah Arnup; Hayden Johns; Tiffany Leung; Stuart Roberts; Bruce C V Campbell; Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan
Journal:  Int J Stroke       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 5.266

View more
  8 in total

1.  Can Quality Improvement Tools Overcome the Translational Roadblock-the Vital Influence of the Researcher.

Authors:  Serge Marbacher
Journal:  Transl Stroke Res       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 6.829

2.  To Improve Translational Research in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

Authors:  Hidenori Suzuki; Fumi Nakano
Journal:  Transl Stroke Res       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 6.829

3.  Challenges and Controversies in Translational Stroke Research - an Introduction.

Authors:  Johannes Boltze; Cenk Ayata
Journal:  Transl Stroke Res       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 6.829

4.  Correcting the Trajectory of Stroke Therapeutic Research.

Authors:  Keith R Pennypacker; Gregory Bix; Justin F Fraser
Journal:  Transl Stroke Res       Date:  2016-12-30       Impact factor: 6.829

5.  Stroke recovery phenotyping through network trajectory approaches and graph neural networks.

Authors:  Sanjukta Krishnagopal; Keith Lohse; Robynne Braun
Journal:  Brain Inform       Date:  2022-06-19

Review 6.  Cell Therapy in Stroke-Cautious Steps Towards a Clinical Treatment.

Authors:  Olivier Detante; Keith Muir; Jukka Jolkkonen
Journal:  Transl Stroke Res       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 6.829

7.  Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improve Motor Recovery in Subacute Ischemic Stroke: a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Assia Jaillard; Marc Hommel; Anaick Moisan; Thomas A Zeffiro; Isabelle M Favre-Wiki; Marianne Barbieux-Guillot; Wilfried Vadot; Sebastien Marcel; Laurent Lamalle; Sylvie Grand; Olivier Detante
Journal:  Transl Stroke Res       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 6.800

8.  Domain-Specific Outcomes for Stroke Clinical Trials: What the Modified Rankin Isn't Ranking.

Authors:  Robynne G Braun; Laura Heitsch; John W Cole; Arne G Lindgren; Adam de Havenon; Jason A Dude; Keith R Lohse; Steven C Cramer; Bradford B Worrall
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 11.800

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.