Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31262343›Full record

Trial reportTrials2019

PULSE-I - Is rePetitive Upper Limb SEnsory stimulation early after stroke feasible and acceptable? A stratified single-blinded randomised controlled feasibility study.

Kausik Chatterjee, Rachel C Stockley, Steven Lane, Caroline Watkins, Katy Cottrell, Brenda Ankers, Sioned Davies, Mary Fisher Morris, Nick Fallon, Turo Nurmikko

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Effect of electro-acupuncture therapy on limb spasm and excitability of motor neurons in stroke rats.Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2021
    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

10 authors.

Kausik ChatterjeeCountess of Chester Hospital Foundation Trust, Liverpool Rd, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK. kausikchatterjee@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3093-1469
Rachel C StockleyStroke Research Team, School of Nursing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Steven LaneDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Caroline WatkinsStroke Research Team, School of Nursing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Katy CottrellCountess of Chester Hospital Foundation Trust, Liverpool Rd, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK.
Brenda AnkersCountess of Chester Hospital Foundation Trust, Liverpool Rd, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK.
Sioned DaviesCountess of Chester Hospital Foundation Trust, Liverpool Rd, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK.
Mary Fisher MorrisMemCheck Memory Clinic, Beehive Healthcare, Northgate Avenue, Chester, CH2 2DX, UK.
Nick FallonDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L697ZA, UK.
Turo NurmikkoNeuroscience Research Centre, The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, L9 7LJ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReduction in sensorimotor function of the upper limb is a common and persistent impairment after stroke, and less than half of stroke survivors recover even basic function of the upper limb after a year. Previous work in stroke has shown that repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) of the upper limb may benefit motor function. As yet, there have been no investigations of RSS in the early-acute period despite this being the time window during which the neuroplastic processes underpinning sensorimotor recovery are likely to occur.

methodsA single-blinded, stratified, randomised controlled feasibility study was undertaken at two NHS acute trusts to determine the recruitment rate, intervention adherence, and safety and acceptability of an RSS intervention in the early period after stroke. Participants were recruited within 2 weeks of index stroke. Stratified on arm function, they were randomised to receive either 45 min of daily RSS and usual care or usual care alone (UC) for 2 weeks. Changes from baseline on the primary outcome of the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) to measurements taken by a blinded assessor were examined after completion of the intervention (2 weeks) and at 3 months from randomisation.

resultsForty patients were recruited and randomised (RSS n = 23; UC n = 17) with a recruitment rate of 9.5% (40/417) of patients admitted with a stroke of which 52 (12.5%) were potentially eligible, with 10 declining to participate for various reasons. Participants found the RSS intervention acceptable and adherence was good. The intervention was safe and there were no serious adverse events.

conclusionsThis study indicates that recruitment to a trial of RSS in the acute period after stroke is feasible. The intervention was well tolerated and appeared to provide additional benefit to usual care. In addition to a definitive trial of efficacy, further work is warranted to examine the effects of varying doses of RSS upon arm function and the mechanism by which RSS induces sensorimotor recovery in the acute period after stroke.

trial registrationISRCTN, registry no: ISRCTN17422343 ; IRAS Project ID: 215137. Registered on October 2016.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyMotor ActivityAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDisability EvaluationEnglandFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRecovery of FunctionSingle-Blind MethodStrokeStroke RehabilitationRepetitive sensory stimulationStrokeUpper limb rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID31262343
PMCPMC6604268

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.