Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26839716›Full record

Trial reportNeural plasticity2016

Functional versus Nonfunctional Rehabilitation in Chronic Ischemic Stroke: Evidences from a Randomized Functional MRI Study.

Maristela C X Pelicioni, Morgana M Novaes, Andre S C Peres, Altay A Lino de Souza, Cesar Minelli, Soraia R C Fabio, Octavio M Pontes-Neto, Antonio C Santos, Draulio B de Araujo

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neural plasticity, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Maristela C X PelicioniRadiology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Ribeirao Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, 14049-900 Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.
Morgana M NovaesBrain Institute/Onofre Lopes University Hospital, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, 59153-155 Natal, RN, Brazil.
Andre S C PeresBrain Institute/Onofre Lopes University Hospital, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, 59153-155 Natal, RN, Brazil.
Altay A Lino de SouzaDepartment of Psychobiology, Federal University of Sao Paulo (UNIFESP), Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Cesar MinelliDepartment of Neuroscience and Behavior, Ribeirao Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, 14049-900 Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.
Soraia R C FabioDepartment of Neuroscience and Behavior, Ribeirao Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, 14049-900 Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.
Octavio M Pontes-NetoDepartment of Neuroscience and Behavior, Ribeirao Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, 14049-900 Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.
Antonio C SantosRadiology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Ribeirao Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, 14049-900 Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil; Department of Neuroscience and Behavior, Ribeirao Preto School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, 14049-900 Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.
Draulio B de AraujoBrain Institute/Onofre Lopes University Hospital, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, 59153-155 Natal, RN, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motor rehabilitation of stroke survivors may include functional and/or nonfunctional strategy. The present study aimed to compare the effect of these two rehabilitation strategies by means of clinical scales and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). Twelve hemiparetic chronic stroke patients were selected. Patients were randomly assigned a nonfunctional (NFS) or functional (FS) rehabilitation scheme. Clinical scales (Fugl-Meyer, ARA test, and modified Barthel) and fMRI were applied at four moments: before rehabilitation (P1) and immediately after (P2), 1 month after (P3), and three months after (P4) the end of rehabilitation. The NFS group improved significantly and exclusively their Fugl-Meyer scores at P2, P3, and P4, when compared to P1. On the other hand, the FS group increased significantly in Fugl-Meyer at P2, when compared to P1, and also in their ARA and Barthel scores. fMRI inspection at the individual level revealed that both rehabilitation schemes most often led to decreased activation sparseness, decreased activity of contralesional M1, increased asymmetry of M1 activity to the ipsilesional side, decreased perilesional activity, and decreased SMA activity. Increased M1 asymmetry with rehabilitation was also confirmed by Lateralization Indexes. Our clinical analysis revealed subtle differences between FS and NFS.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationAdultAgedBrainBrain IschemiaFemaleFunctional LateralityHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRecovery of FunctionStrokeTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26839716
PMCPMC4709724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.