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.

/pdf/standardized-measurement-of-sensorimotor-recovery-in-stroke-4dt3twvqxu.pdf

Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

Background Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects. Objective We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson's disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction. Methods Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies. Results Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson's disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy). Conclusion All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.

/pdf/evidence-based-guidelines-and-secondary-meta-analysis-for-1rrr7b7pv2.pdf

Evidence-based guidelines and secondary meta-analysis for the use of transcranial direct current stimulation in neurological and psychiatric disorders

High quality up-to-date systematic reviews are essential in order to help healthcare practitioners and researchers keep up-to-date with a large and rapidly growing body of evidence. Systematic reviews answer pre-defined research questions using explicit, reproducible methods to identify, critically appraise and combine results of primary research studies. Key stages in the production of systematic reviews include clarification of aims and methods in a protocol, finding relevant research, collecting data, assessing study quality, synthesizing evidence, and interpreting findings. Systematic reviews may address different types of questions, such as questions about effectiveness of interventions, diagnostic test accuracy, prognosis, prevalence or incidence of disease, accuracy of measurement instruments, or qualitative data. For all reviews, it is important to define criteria such as the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes, and to identify potential risks of bias. Reviews of the effect of rehabilitation interventions or reviews of data from observational studies, diagnostic test accuracy, or qualitative data may be more methodologically challenging than reviews of effectiveness of drugs for the prevention or treatment of stroke. Challenges in reviews of stroke rehabilitation can include poor definition of complex interventions, use of outcome measures that have not been validated, and poor generalizability of results. There may also be challenges with bias because the effects are dependent on the persons delivering the intervention, and because masking of participants and investigators may not be possible. There are a wide range of resources which can support the planning and completion of systematic reviews, and these should be considered when planning a systematic review relating to stroke.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1747493017743796

How to do a systematic review.

Virtual-reality based rehabilitation (VR) shows potential as an engaging and effective way to improve upper-limb function and cognitive abilities following a stroke. However, an updated synthesis of the literature is needed to capture growth in recent research and address gaps in our understanding of factors that may optimize training parameters and treatment effects. Published randomized controlled trials comparing VR to conventional therapy were retrieved from seven electronic databases. Treatment effects (Hedge’s g) were estimated using a random effects model, with motor and functional outcomes between different protocols compared at the Body Structure/Function, Activity, and Participation levels of the International Classification of Functioning. Thirty-three studies were identified, including 971 participants (492 VR participants). VR produced small to medium overall effects (g = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.33–0.59, p < 0.01), above and beyond conventional therapies. Small to medium effects were observed on Body Structure/Function (g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28–0.55; p < 0.01) and Activity outcomes (g = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.34–0.60, p < 0.01), while Participation outcomes failed to reach significance (g = 0.38; 95% CI: -0.29-1.04, p = 0.27). Superior benefits for Body Structure/Function (g = 0.56) and Activity outcomes (g = 0.62) were observed when examining outcomes only from purpose-designed VR systems. Preliminary results (k = 4) suggested small to medium effects for cognitive outcomes (g = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.28–0.55; p < 0.01). Moderator analysis found no advantage for higher doses of VR, massed practice training schedules, or greater time since injury. VR can effect significant gains on Body Structure/Function and Activity level outcomes, including improvements in cognitive function, for individuals who have sustained a stroke. The evidence supports the use of VR as an adjunct for stroke rehabilitation, with effectiveness evident for a variety of platforms, training parameters, and stages of recovery.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12984-018-0370-2.pdf

What do randomized controlled trials say about virtual rehabilitation in stroke? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of upper-limb and cognitive outcomes

Background and Objectives
Opioids increase the risk for sleep disordered breathing (SDB), but there are few studies examining the prevalence and risk factors for SDB, specifically central sleep apnea (CSA), and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in chronic pain patients on opioids as well as methadone maintained patients (MMPs).

Methods
A literature review was conducted in which SDB was confirmed by polysomnography (PSG) in chronic pain patients on opioids as well as patients with a diagnosis of an opioid use disorder or opioid dependence on methadone maintenance treatment (MMT).

Results
About 22 reports were included. Six were with MMPs, and 16 were with chronic pain patients on opioids. Among MMPs, the prevalence of SDB ranged from 42.3% to 70%; 0–60% had CSA and 10–35.2% had OSA. In chronic pain patients on opioids, the prevalence of SDB ranged from 71% to 100%; 17–80% had CSA and 20–39% had OSA. In MMPs, studies found a positive association between BMI, weight gain, duration of MMT, non-Caucasian race and the number of obstructive apneas, as well as blood methadone concentrations and the number of central apneas. In chronic pain patients on opioids, older age, higher BMI, male gender, and higher opioid doses predicted more obstructive apneas; older age, lower BMI, male gender, higher pain levels, higher benzodiazepine doses, and higher opioid doses predicted more central apneas.

Conclusion and Scientific Significance
CSA and OSA are common in MMPs and chronic pain patients on opioids. Among chronic pain patients, higher opioid doses appear to be a risk factor for CSA, and to a lesser extent OSA. Therefore, it is important for providers to screen these patient populations for SDB. (Am J Addict 2016;25:452–465)

A narrative review: The effects of opioids on sleep disordered breathing in chronic pain patients and methadone maintained patients.

Background
Establishing which upper limb outcome measures are most commonly used in stroke studies may help in improving consensus among scientists and clinicians.

/pdf/upper-limb-outcome-measures-used-in-stroke-rehabilitation-2th884vx30.pdf

Upper Limb Outcome Measures Used in Stroke Rehabilitation Studies: A Systematic Literature Review

Exercices thérapeutiques en vue de la reprise de la marche du paraplégique incomplet

Rééducation du blessé médullaire en balnéothérapie : une liberté retrouvée dans un nouveau milieu

Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review Leire Santisteban, Maxime Térémetz, Jean-Pierre Bleton, Jean-Claude Baron, Marc A. Maier, Påvel G. Lindberg. Plos One 2016

Leire Santisteban

Papers

Upper Limb Outcome Measures Used in Stroke Rehabilitation Studies: A Systematic Literature Review

Exercices thérapeutiques en vue de la reprise de la marche du paraplégique incomplet

Rééducation du blessé médullaire en balnéothérapie : une liberté retrouvée dans un nouveau milieu

Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review Leire Santisteban, Maxime Térémetz, Jean-Pierre Bleton, Jean-Claude Baron, Marc A. Maier, Påvel G. Lindberg. Plos One 2016