Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24951091›Full record

ArticleThe Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry2015

Rethinking stimulation of the brain in stroke rehabilitation: why higher motor areas might be better alternatives for patients with greater impairments.

Ela B Plow, David A Cunningham, Nicole Varnerin, Andre Machado

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03868410 (A Novel Approach for Brain Stimulation in Severe Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03868410 early_phase1completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

A Novel Approach for Brain Stimulation in Severe Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Cleveland ClinicRan2019 to 2023Enrolled16ConditionsStrokeArmsNew Repetitive Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Approach, Conventional Repetitive Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) Approach
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Ela B PlowDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA plowe2@ccf.org.
David A CunninghamDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA.
Nicole VarnerinDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Andre MachadoCenter for Neurological Restoration, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandUL1TR000439 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KONSTAN, MICHAEL W. · 2012 to 2016
$50.0M
Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of ClevelandKL2TR000440 · NCATS · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI KONSTAN, MICHAEL W. · 2012 to 2016
$11.1M
Dentatothalamocortical electrical stimulation in post-stroke motor recoveryR01HD061363 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI MACHADO, ANDRE GUELMAN · 2010 to 2014
$1.5M
Brain Stimulation- aided Stroke Rehabilitation: Neural Mechanisms of RecoveryK01HD069504 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI PLOW, ELA B · 2011 to 2015
$531k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000440NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000439NICHD NIH HHS 1K01HD069504NICHD NIH HHS 5R01HD061363NICHD NIH HHS K01 HD069504NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD061363
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stimulating the brain to drive its adaptive plastic potential is promising to accelerate rehabilitative outcomes in stroke. The ipsilesional primary motor cortex (M1) is invariably facilitated. However, evidence supporting its efficacy is divided, indicating that we may have overgeneralized its potential. Since the M1 and its corticospinal output are frequently damaged in patients with serious lesions and impairments, ipsilesional premotor areas (PMAs) could be useful alternates instead. We base our premise on their higher probability of survival, greater descending projections, and adaptive potential, which is causal for recovery across the seriously impaired. Using a conceptual model, we describe how chronically stimulating PMAs would strongly affect key mechanisms of stroke motor recovery, such as facilitating the plasticity of alternate descending output, restoring interhemispheric balance, and establishing widespread connectivity. Although at this time it is difficult to predict whether PMAs would be "better," it is important to at least investigate whether they are reasonable substitutes for the M1. Even if the stimulation of the M1 may benefit those with maximum recovery potential, while that of PMAs may only help the more disadvantaged, it may still be reasonable to achieve some recovery across the majority rather than stimulate a single locus fated to be inconsistently effective across all.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansMotor CortexNeuronal PlasticityPyramidal TractsTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic Stimulationbrain stimulationcorticospinaldiffusion tensor imagingfunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)motor cortex (M1)premotorrehabilitationstroketranscallosaltranscranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

Identifiers

PMID24951091
PMCPMC4440790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.