Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38129527›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2023

ENHANCE proof-of-concept three-arm randomized trial: effects of reaching training of the hemiparetic upper limb restricted to the spasticity-free elbow range.

Mindy F Levin, Sigal Berman, Neta Weiss, Yisrael Parmet, Melanie C Baniña, Silvi Frenkel-Toledo, Nachum Soroker, John M Solomon, Dario G Liebermann

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02725853 (ENHANCE), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT02725853 nacompletednot on this map

ENHANCE: Enhancing Brain Plasticity for Sensorimotor Recovery in Spastic Hemiparesis

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcGill UniversityRan2016 to 2021Enrolled50ConditionsStroke, Arm, ParesisArmstDCS, sham tDCS, personalized practice, non-personalized practice
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors.

Mindy F LevinFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, 3654 Promenade Sir William Osler, Montreal, QC, H3G 1Y5, Canada. mindy.levin@mcgill.ca.
Sigal BermanDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Neta WeissDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Yisrael ParmetDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Melanie C BaniñaFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, 3654 Promenade Sir William Osler, Montreal, QC, H3G 1Y5, Canada.
Silvi Frenkel-ToledoDepartment of Physical Therapy, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.
Nachum SorokerDepartment of Neurological Rehabilitation, Loewenstein Rehabilitation Hospital, Ra'anana, Israel.
John M SolomonDepartment of Physiotherapy, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Dario G LiebermannDepartment of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Stanley Steyer School of Health Professions, Tel Aviv University, POB 39040, 61390, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel. dlieberm@tauex.tau.ac.il.

Funding

International Development Research Center, Canada 108186-001Israel Science Foundation 2392\15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-stroke motor recovery processes remain unknown. Timescales and patterns of upper-limb (UL) recovery suggest a major impact of biological factors, with modest contributions from rehabilitation. We assessed a novel impairment-based training motivated by motor control theory where reaching occurs within the spasticity-free elbow range. Patients with subacute stroke (≤ 6 month; n = 46) and elbow flexor spasticity were randomly allocated to a 10-day UL training protocol, either personalized by restricting reaching to the spasticity-free elbow range defined by the tonic stretch reflex threshold (TSRT) or non-personalized (non-restricted) and with/without anodal transcranial direct current stimulation. Outcomes assessed before, after, and 1 month post-intervention were elbow flexor TSRT angle and reach-to-grasp arm kinematics (primary) and stretch reflex velocity sensitivity, clinical impairment, and activity (secondary). Results were analyzed for 3 groups as well as those of the effects of impairment-based training. Clinical measures improved in both groups. Spasticity-free range training resulted in faster and smoother reaches, smaller (i.e., better) arm-plane path length, and closer-to-normal shoulder/elbow movement patterns. Non-personalized training improved clinical scores without improving arm kinematics, suggesting that clinical measures do not account for movement quality. Impairment-based training within a spasticity-free elbow range is promising since it may improve clinical scores together with arm movement quality.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT02725853; Initial registration date: 01/04/2016.

Indexed as

Elbow JointStrokeStroke RehabilitationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationElbowHumansMuscle SpasticityUpper Extremity

Identifiers

PMID38129527
PMCPMC10739929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.