Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29472884›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2017

Functional Strength Training and Movement Performance Therapy for Upper Limb Recovery Early Poststroke-Efficacy, Neural Correlates, Predictive Markers, and Cost-Effectiveness: FAST-INdiCATE Trial.

Susan M Hunter, Heidi Johansen-Berg, Nick Ward, Niamh C Kennedy, Elizabeth Chandler, Christopher John Weir, John Rothwell, Alan M Wing, Michael J Grey, Garry Barton and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Physical fitness training for stroke patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

16 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Susan M HunterSchool of Health and Rehabilitation, Institute for Applied Clinical Sciences, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom.
Heidi Johansen-BergWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Clinical neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Nick WardSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom.
Niamh C KennedySchool of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth ChandlerFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Christopher John WeirEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
John RothwellSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom.
Alan M WingSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Michael J GreyFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Garry BartonFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Nick Malachy LeaveyFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Claire HavisFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Roger N LemonSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, United Kingdom.
Jane BurridgeFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Amy DymondFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Valerie M PomeroyFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, United Kingdom.
University of East Anglia · GBSobell House · GBNorwich Research Park · GBKeele University · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity of Ulster · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_12034Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVariation in physiological deficits underlying upper limb paresis after stroke could influence how people recover and to which physical therapy they best respond.

objectivesTo determine whether functional strength training (FST) improves upper limb recovery more than movement performance therapy (MPT). To identify: (a) neural correlates of response and (b) whether pre-intervention neural characteristics predict response.

designExplanatory investigations within a randomised, controlled, observer-blind, and multicentre trial. Randomisation was computer-generated and concealed by an independent facility until baseline measures were completed. Primary time point was outcome, after the 6-week intervention phase. Follow-up was at 6 months after stroke.

participantsWith some voluntary muscle contraction in the paretic upper limb, not full dexterity, when recruited up to 60 days after an anterior cerebral circulation territory stroke.

interventionsConventional physical therapy (CPT) plus either MPT or FST for up to 90 min-a-day, 5 days-a-week for 6 weeks. FST was "hands-off" progressive resistive exercise cemented into functional task training. MPT was "hands-on" sensory/facilitation techniques for smooth and accurate movement. OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Neural measures: fractional anisotropy (FA) corpus callosum midline; asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA; and resting motor threshold (RMT) of motor-evoked potentials. ANALYSIS: Covariance models tested ARAT change from baseline. At outcome: correlation coefficients assessed relationship between change in ARAT and neural measures; an interaction term assessed whether baseline neural characteristics predicted response.

results288 Participants had: mean age of 72.2 (SD 12.5) years and mean ARAT 25.5 (18.2). For 240 participants with ARAT at baseline and outcome the mean change was 9.70 (11.72) for FST + CPT and 7.90 (9.18) for MPT + CPT, which did not differ statistically (

conclusionsThere was no significant difference in upper limb improvement between FST and MPT. Baseline neural measures did not correlate with upper limb recovery or predict therapy response.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCT 19090862, http://www.controlled-trials.com.

Indexed as

magnetic resonance imagingphysical therapyrehabilitationstroketranscranial magnetic stimulationupper limb; prediction

Identifiers

PMID29472884
PMCPMC5810279
OpenAlexW2777979857

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.