Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27498680›Full record

ReviewTranslational stroke research2016

How to Measure Recovery? Revisiting Concepts and Methods for Stroke Studies.

Marc Hommel, Olivier Detante, Isabelle Favre, Emmanuel Touzé, Assia Jaillard

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational stroke research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Marc HommelUniversity Grenoble Alpes, AGEIS EA 7407, Grenoble, France. marc.hommel@ujf-grenoble.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-3177-4917
Olivier DetanteCHU Grenoble, Pôle Psychiatrie Neurologie, Stroke unit, Grenoble, France.
Isabelle FavreCHU Grenoble, Pôle Psychiatrie Neurologie, Stroke unit, Grenoble, France.
Emmanuel TouzéINSERM U919, Stroke unit, CHU, University of Caen Basse Normandie, Caen, France.
Assia JaillardUniversity Grenoble Alpes, AGEIS EA 7407, Grenoble, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In clinical trials, assessing efficacy is based on validated scales, and the primary endpoint is usually based on a single scale. The aim of the review is to revisit the concepts and methods to design and analyze studies focused on restoration, recovery and or compensation. These studies are becoming more frequent with the development of restorative medicine. After discussing the definitions of recovery, we address the concept of recovery as the regain of lost capabilities, when the patient reaches a new equilibrium. Recovery is a dynamic process which assessment includes information from initial and final status, their difference, the difference between the final status of the patient and normality, and the speed of restoration. Finally, recovery can be assessed either for a specific function (focal restoration) or for a more global restoration. A single scale is not able to assess all the facets of a skill or a function, therefore complementary information should be collected and analyzed simultaneously to be tested in a single analysis. We are suggesting that recovery should be considered as a latent variable and therefore cannot be measured in pure form. We are also suggesting to customize the data collection and analysis according to the characteristics of the subjects, the mechanisms of action and consequences of the intervention. Moreover, recovery trials should benefit from latent variable analysis methods. Structural equation modeling is likely the best candidate for this approach applicable in pre-clinical and clinical studies.

Indexed as

Treatment OutcomeAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicHumansRecovery of FunctionStrokeClinical scaleIntervention evaluationLatent variableMethodologyModelingStudy design

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.