Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28628592›Full record

ReviewJournal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT2017

Genetic Variation and Neuroplasticity: Role in Rehabilitation After Stroke.

Jill Campbell Stewart, Steven C Cramer

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Impact ofFrontiers in neurology · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Moving towards precision neurological rehabilitation: a mandatory path to follow in the era of precision neurology.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jill Campbell StewartPhysical Therapy Program (J.C.S.), Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia; and Departments of Neurology, Anatomy & Neurobiology, and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (S.C.C.), University of California, Irvine.
Steven C Cramer
Irvine Valley College · US

Funding

University of California Health Participation in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C)UL1TR001414 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI COOPER, DAN M, VILAIN, ERIC J. · 2015 to 2023
$35.1M
Brain plasticity and rehabilitation after strokeK24HD074722 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI CRAMER, STEVEN C. · 2013 to 2017
$588k
Targeted Engagement of the Premotor-Prefrontal Motor Circuit after StrokeR03HD087481 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI STEWART, JILL CAMPBELL · 2016 to 2017
$141k
American Heart Association-American Stroke Association 15SDG24970011NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001414NICHD NIH HHS K24 HD074722NICHD NIH HHS R03 HD087481
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeIn many neurologic diagnoses, significant interindividual variability exists in the outcomes of rehabilitation. One factor that may impact response to rehabilitation interventions is genetic variation. Genetic variation refers to the presence of differences in the DNA sequence among individuals in a population. Genetic polymorphisms are variations that occur relatively commonly and, while not disease-causing, can impact the function of biological systems. The purpose of this article is to describe genetic polymorphisms that may impact neuroplasticity, motor learning, and recovery after stroke. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: Genetic polymorphisms for brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), dopamine, and apolipoprotein E have been shown to impact neuroplasticity and motor learning. Rehabilitation interventions that rely on the molecular and cellular pathways of these factors may be impacted by the presence of the polymorphism. For example, it has been hypothesized that individuals with the BDNF polymorphism may show a decreased response to neuroplasticity-based interventions, decreased rate of learning, and overall less recovery after stroke. However, research to date has been limited and additional work is needed to fully understand the role of genetic variation in learning and recovery. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Genetic polymorphisms should be considered as possible predictors or covariates in studies that investigate neuroplasticity, motor learning, or motor recovery after stroke. Future predictive models of stroke recovery will likely include a combination of genetic factors and other traditional factors (eg, age, lesion type, corticospinal tract integrity) to determine an individual's expected response to a specific rehabilitation intervention.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationStroke RehabilitationHumansNeuronal PlasticityPyramidal TractsRecovery of FunctionStroke

Identifiers

PMID28628592
PMCPMC5477674
OpenAlexW2625663116

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.