Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34587830›Full record

Trial reportNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2021

Repetitive Peripheral Sensory Stimulation as an Add-On Intervention for Upper Limb Rehabilitation in Stroke: A Randomized Trial.

Adriana B Conforto, André G Machado, Nathalia H V Ribeiro, Ela B Plow, Sook-Lei Liew, Claudia da Costa Leite, Artemis Zavaliangos-Petropulu, Isabella Menezes, Sarah M Dos Anjos, Rafael Luccas and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02658578 (Peripheral Nerve Stimulation and Motor Training to Enhance Hand Function After Stroke), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

NCT02658578 nacompletednot on this map

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation and Motor Training to Enhance Hand Function After Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Sao Paulo General HospitalRan2016 to 2021Enrolled38ConditionsStrokeArmsPNS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Adriana B ConfortoNeurology Clinical Division, Hospital Das Clínicas, 117265São Paulo University and Fundação Faculdade de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7869-3490
André G MachadoDepartament of Neurosciences, 2569Lerner Reasearch Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Nathalia H V RibeiroNeurology Clinical Division, Hospital Das Clínicas, 117265São Paulo University and Fundação Faculdade de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ela B PlowDepartament of Neurosciences, 2569Lerner Reasearch Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Sook-Lei LiewChan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, Biomedical Engineering, and Neurology; USC Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, 5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5935-4215
Claudia da Costa LeiteNúcleo de Apoio à Pesquisa Em Neurociências (Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Applied Neurosciences: NAPNA), São Paulo University, São Paulo, Brazil.
Artemis Zavaliangos-PetropuluChan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, Biomedical Engineering, and Neurology; USC Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, 5116University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Isabella MenezesNeurology Clinical Division, Hospital Das Clínicas, 117265São Paulo University and Fundação Faculdade de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil.
Sarah M Dos AnjosSchool of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Rafael LuccasNeurology Clinical Division, Hospital Das Clínicas, 117265São Paulo University and Fundação Faculdade de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil.
Paul Hunter PeckhamMetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Leonardo G CohenHuman Cortical Physiology and Stroke Neurorehabilitation Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

Supplement to Effects of global brain health on sensorimotor recovery after strokeR01NS115845 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI LIEW, SOOK-LEI · 2020 to 2024
$3.2M
Contralaterally Controlled FES Combined with Brain Stimulation for Severe Upper limb HemiplegiaR01HD098073 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI PLOW, ELA B · 2019 to 2024
$3.1M
Combined brain and peripheral nerve stimulation to enhance beneficial effects ofR01NS076348 · NINDS · FUNDACAO FACULDADE DE MEDICINA · PI CONFORTO, ADRIANA B · 2012 to 2015
$441k
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD098073NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS076348NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS115845
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRepetitive peripheral sensory stimulation (RPSS) followed by 4-hour task-specific training (TST) improves upper limb motor function in subjects with stroke who experience moderate to severe motor upper limb impairments. Here, we compared effects of RPSS vs sham followed by a shorter duration of training in subjects with moderate to severe motor impairments in the chronic phase after stroke.

methodsThis single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial compared effects of 18 sessions of either 1.5 h of active RPSS or sham followed by a supervised session that included 45 min of TST of the paretic upper limb. In both groups, subjects were instructed to perform functional tasks at home, without supervision. The primary outcome measure was the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) after 6 weeks of treatment. Grasp and pinch strength were secondary outcomes.

resultsIn intention-to-treat analysis, WMFT improved significantly in both active and sham groups at 3 and 6 weeks of treatment. Grasp strength improved significantly in the active, but not in the sham group, at 3 and 6 weeks. Pinch strength improved significantly in both groups at 3 weeks, and only in the active group at 6 weeks.

conclusionsThe between-group difference in changes in WMFT was not statistically significant. Despite the short duration of supervised treatment, WMFT improved significantly in subjects treated with RPSS or sham. These findings are relevant to settings that impose constraints in duration of direct contact between therapists and patients. In addition, RPSS led to significant gains in hand strength.Trial Registry Name: Peripheral Nerve Stimulation and Motor Training in Stroke Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT0265878 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02658578.

Indexed as

Occupational TherapyStroke RehabilitationTranscutaneous Electric Nerve StimulationAgedCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareUpper Extremitycerebrovascular accidentneuromodulationrehabilitationsensoryupper extremity

Identifiers

PMID34587830
PMCPMC8800488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.