Search

Introduction: The WHO estimates that each year 5 million people are left permanently disabled after stroke. Adjuvant treatments to promote the effects of rehabilitation are urgently needed. Cortical excitability and neuroplasticity can be enhanced by non-invasive brain stimulation but evidence from sufficiently powered, randomized controlled multi-center clinical trials is absent. Methods: Neuroregeneration enhanced by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in stroke (NETS) tested efficacy and safety of anodal tDCS to the primary motor cortex of the lesioned hemisphere in the subacute phase (day 5–45) after cerebral ischemia. Stimulation was combined with standardized rehabilitative training and repeatedly applied in 10 sessions over a period of 2 weeks in a planned sample of 120 patients. Primary outcome parameter was upper-extremity function at the end of the 2-weeks intervention period of active treatment or placebo (1:1 randomization), measured by the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment. Sustainability of the treatment effect was evaluated by additional follow-up visits after 30 and 90 days. Further secondary endpoints included metrics of arm and hand function, stroke impact scale, and the depression module of the patient health questionnaire. Perspective: NETS was aimed at providing evidence for an effective and safe adjuvant treatment for patients after stroke. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00909714. Registered May 28, 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The WHO estimates that each year 5 million people are left permanently disabled after stroke. Adjuvant treatments to promote the effects of rehabilitation are urgently needed. Cortical excitability and neuroplasticity can be enhanced by non-invasive brain stimulation but evidence from sufficiently powered, randomized controlled multi-center clinical trials is absent. Methods: Neuroregeneration enhanced by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in stroke (NETS) tested efficacy and safety of anodal tDCS to the primary motor cortex of the lesioned hemisphere in the subacute phase (day 5–45) after cerebral ischemia. Stimulation was combined with standardized rehabilitative training and repeatedly applied in 10 sessions over a period of 2 weeks in a planned sample of 120 patients. Primary outcome parameter was upper-extremity function at the end of the 2-weeks intervention period of active treatment or placebo (1:1 randomization), measured by the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment. Sustainability of the treatment effect was evaluated by additional follow-up visits after 30 and 90 days. Further secondary endpoints included metrics of arm and hand function, stroke impact scale, and the depression module of the patient health questionnaire. Perspective: NETS was aimed at providing evidence for an effective and safe adjuvant treatment for patients after stroke. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00909714. Registered May 28, 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A better understanding of motor recovery after stroke requires large-scale, longitudinal trials applying suitable assessments. Currently, there is an abundance of upper limb assessments used to quantify recovery. How well various assessments can describe upper limb function change over 1 year remains uncertain. A uniform and feasible standard would be beneficial to increase future studies' comparability on stroke recovery. This review describes which assessments are common in large-scale, longitudinal stroke trials and how these quantify the change in upper limb function from stroke onset up to 1 year. A systematic search for well-powered stroke studies identified upper limb assessments classifying motor recovery during the initial year after a stroke. A metaregression investigated the association between assessments and motor recovery within 1 year after stroke. Scores from nine common assessments and 4,433 patients were combined and transformed into a standardized recovery score. A mixed-effects model on recovery scores over time confirmed significant differences between assessments (P < 0.001), with improvement following the weeks after stroke present when measuring recovery using the Action Research Arm Test (β = 0.013), Box and Block test (β = 0.011), Fugl–Meyer Assessment (β = 0.007), or grip force test (β = 0.023). A last-observation-carried-forward analysis also highlighted the peg test (β = 0.017) and Rivermead Assessment (β = 0.011) as additional, valuable long-term outcome measures. Recovery patterns and, thus, trial outcomes are dependent on the assessment implemented. Future research should include multiple common assessments and continue data collection for a full year after stroke to facilitate the consensus process on assessments measuring upper limb recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]