Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31257411›Full record

ReviewBrain : a journal of neurology2019

Neurotechnology-aided interventions for upper limb motor rehabilitation in severe chronic stroke.

Martina Coscia, Maximilian J Wessel, Ujwal Chaudary, José Del R Millán, Silvestro Micera, Adrian Guggisberg, Philippe Vuadens, John Donoghue, Niels Birbaumer, Friedhelm C Hummel

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04512690 (Spinal Cord Stimulation for Restoration of Arm and Hand Function in People With Subcortical Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 104 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
16.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04512690 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Restoration of Arm and Hand Function in People With Subcortical Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorLee Fisher, PhDRan2021 to 2025Enrolled7ConditionsStroke, Brain Diseases, Central Nervous System Diseases, Nervous System DiseasesArmsEpidural electrical stimulation (EES) of the cervical spinal cord
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

104 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 209 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Robotic therapy for the hemiplegic shoulder pain: a pilot study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2020
    Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Martina CosciaWyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering, Chemin des Mines 9, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Maximilian J WesselDefitech Chair in Clinical Neuroengineering, Center for Neuroprosthetics (CNP) and Brain Mind Institute (BMI), School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Ujwal ChaudaryWyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering, Chemin des Mines 9, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
José Del R MillánDefitech Chair in Brain-Machine Interface, Center for Neuroprosthetics, School of Engineering, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland.
Silvestro MiceraBertarelli Foundation Chair in Translational Neuroengineering, Center for Neuroprosthetics and Institute of Bioengineering, School of Engineering, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland.
Adrian GuggisbergClinical Neuroscience, University of Geneva Medical School, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Philippe VuadensClinique Romande de Réadaptation, 1951 Sion, Switzerland.
John DonoghueWyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering, Chemin des Mines 9, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Niels BirbaumerWyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering, Chemin des Mines 9, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Friedhelm C HummelDefitech Chair in Clinical Neuroengineering, Center for Neuroprosthetics (CNP) and Brain Mind Institute (BMI), School of Life Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne · CHWyss Center for Bio and Neuroengineering · CHBrown University · USClinique Romande de Réadaptation · CHScuola Superiore Sant'Anna · ITUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Upper limb motor deficits in severe stroke survivors often remain unresolved over extended time periods. Novel neurotechnologies have the potential to significantly support upper limb motor restoration in severely impaired stroke individuals. Here, we review recent controlled clinical studies and reviews focusing on the mechanisms of action and effectiveness of single and combined technology-aided interventions for upper limb motor rehabilitation after stroke, including robotics, muscular electrical stimulation, brain stimulation and brain computer/machine interfaces. We aim at identifying possible guidance for the optimal use of these new technologies to enhance upper limb motor recovery especially in severe chronic stroke patients. We found that the current literature does not provide enough evidence to support strict guidelines, because of the variability of the procedures for each intervention and of the heterogeneity of the stroke population. The present results confirm that neurotechnology-aided upper limb rehabilitation is promising for severe chronic stroke patients, but the combination of interventions often lacks understanding of single intervention mechanisms of action, which may not reflect the summation of single intervention's effectiveness. Stroke rehabilitation is a long and complex process, and one single intervention administrated in a short time interval cannot have a large impact for motor recovery, especially in severely impaired patients. To design personalized interventions combining or proposing different interventions in sequence, it is necessary to have an excellent understanding of the mechanisms determining the effectiveness of a single treatment in this heterogeneous population of stroke patients. We encourage the identification of objective biomarkers for stroke recovery for patients' stratification and to tailor treatments. Furthermore, the advantage of longitudinal personalized trial designs compared to classical double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials as the basis for precise personalized stroke rehabilitation medicine is discussed. Finally, we also promote the necessary conceptual change from 'one-suits-all' treatments within in-patient clinical rehabilitation set-ups towards personalized home-based treatment strategies, by adopting novel technologies merging rehabilitation and motor assistance, including implantable ones.

Indexed as

Brain-Computer InterfacesElectric Stimulation TherapyExercise TherapyHumansRoboticsStroke Rehabilitationclinical trialsneurotechnologiessevere chronic strokestroke rehabilitationupper extremities

Identifiers

PMID31257411
PMCPMC6658861
OpenAlexW2955195560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.