ArticleNeural regeneration research2013
Why do stroke patients with negative motor evoked potential show poor limb motor function recovery?
Article in Neural regeneration research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of Motor Recovery Using Quantitative Parameters of Motor Evoked Potential in Patients With Stroke.Annals of rehabilitation medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Negative motor evoked potentials after cerebral infarction, indicative of poor recovery of limb motor function, tend to be accompanied by changes in fractional anisotropy values and the cerebral peduncle area on the affected side, but the characteristics of these changes have not been reported. This study included 57 cases of cerebral infarction whose motor evoked potentials were tested in the 24 hours after the first inspection for diffusion tensor imaging, in which 29 cases were in the negative group and 28 cases in the positive group. Twenty-nine patients with negative motor evoked potentials were divided into two groups according to fractional anisotropy on the affected side of the cerebral peduncle: a fractional anisotropy < 0.36 group and a fractional anisotropy ≥ 0.36 group. All patients underwent a regular magnetic resonance imaging and a diffusion tensor imaging examination at 1 week, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after cerebral infarction. The Fugl-Meyer scores of their hemiplegic limbs were tested before the magnetic resonance and diffusion tensor imaging tions. In the negative motor evoked potential group, fractional anisotropy in the affected cerebral peduncle declined progressively, which was most obvious in the first 1-3 months after the onset of cerebral infarction. The areas and area asymmetries of the cerebral peduncle on the affected side were significantly decreased at 6 and 12 months after onset. At 12 months after onset, the area asymmetries of the cerebral peduncle on the affected side were lower than the normal lower limit value of 0.83. Fugl-Meyer scores in the fractional anisotropy ≥ 0.36 group were significantly higher than in the fractional anisotropy < 0.36 group at 3-12 months after onset. The fractional anisotropy of the cerebral peduncle in the positive motor evoked potential group decreased in the first 1 month after onset, and stayed unchanged from 3-12 months; there was no change in the area of the cerebral peduncle in the first 1-12 months after cerebral infarction. These findings confirmed that if the fractional anisotropy of the cerebral peduncle on the affected side is < 0.36 and the area asymmetries < 0.83 in patients with negative motor evoked potential after cerebral infarction, then poor hemiplegic limb motor function recovery may occur.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.