Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20164411›Full record

Trial reportNeurorehabilitation and neural repair

International randomized clinical trial, stroke inpatient rehabilitation with reinforcement of walking speed (SIRROWS), improves outcomes.

Bruce H Dobkin, Prudence Plummer-D'Amato, Robert Elashoff, Jihey Lee, SIRROWS Group

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Physical fitness training for stroke patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bruce H DobkinGeffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA. bdobkin@mednet.ucla.edu
Prudence Plummer-D'Amato
Robert Elashoff
Jihey Lee
SIRROWS Group

Funding

Center for experimental neurorehabilitation trainingR24HD050838 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SELZER, MICHAEL EDGAR · 2005 to 2012
$3.7M
fMRI Predictor Model for Stroke Locomotor RehabilitationR01HD046740 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DOBKIN, BRUCE H · 2005 to 2008
$1.6M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD046740NICHD NIH HHS R01-HD46740NICHD NIH HHS R21-HD050838NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD050838
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeedback about performance may optimize motor relearning after stroke.

objectivesDevelop an international collaboration to rapidly test the potential efficacy of daily verbal feedback about walking speed during inpatient rehabilitation after stroke, using a protocol that requires no research funds.

methodsThis phase 2, single-blinded, multicenter trial randomized inpatients to either feedback about self-selected fast walking speed (daily reinforcement of speed, DRS) immediately after a single, daily 10-m walk or to no reinforcement of speed (NRS) after the walk, performed within the context of routine physical therapy. The primary outcome was velocity for a 15.2-m (50-foot) timed walk at discharge. Secondary outcomes were walking distance in 3 minutes, length of stay (LOS), and level of independence (Functional Ambulation Classification, FAC).

resultsWithin 18 months, 179 participants were randomized. The groups were balanced for age, gender, time from onset of stroke to entry, initial velocity, and level of walking-related disability. The walking speed at discharge for DRS (0.91 m/s) was greater (P = .01) than that for NRS (0.72 m/s). No difference was found for LOS. LOS for both DRS and NRS was significantly shorter, however, for those who had mean walking speeds >0.4 m/s at entry. The DRS group did not have a higher proportion of FAC independent walkers (P = .1) and did not walk longer distances ( P = .09).

conclusionsAn Internet-based collaboration of 18 centers found that feedback about performance once a day produced gains in walking speed large enough to permit unlimited, slow community ambulation at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationWalkingAdultAgedDisability EvaluationExercise TherapyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedParesisRecovery of FunctionSingle-Blind MethodStroke

Identifiers

PMID20164411
PMCPMC4099043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.