Trial reportAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2025
Priming and task-specific training for arm weakness post stroke: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- MEP Status is Not Predictive of Response to Upper Limb Training in People With Chronic, Moderate-Severe Hemiparesis Post-Stroke.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this work was to evaluate if task-specific training (TST) preceded by bilateral upper limb motor priming (BUMP) reduces upper limb impairment more than TST preceded by control priming ([CP], sham electrical stimulation) in people with chronic stroke.
methodsIn this single-blind, randomized controlled trial, 76 adults with moderate to severe upper limb hemiparesis ≥6 months post-stroke were stratified by baseline impairment and randomized to receive either BUMP or CP prior to receiving the same TST protocol. Participants completed 30 h of treatment in 15 days over 6 weeks. The primary outcome was change in Fugl-Meyer upper extremity (FMUE) from baseline to 8-week follow-up. We also report clinically meaningful response rates defined as a change in FMUE score of 6 points or greater.
resultsIn response to treatment, both groups improved to a significant extent at follow-up, exceeding the FMUE minimum clinically important difference. Those in BUMP and CP saw a mean change of 5.68 (SE 0.76, p < 0.001) and 5.87 (SE 0.76, p < 0.001) respectively. There was no significant difference between treatment arms (mean difference of -0.20 (95% CI = [-2.37, 1.97], SE = 1.08, p = 0.86)). A response of ≥6 points was observed in 46% in BUMP and 50% in CP.
interpretationThere was no beneficial effect of BUMP. The magnitude of change seen in both groups reflects the largest improvement achieved with just 22.5 h of TST in this population, matching or out-performing more invasive, time-intensive, and costly interventions proposed in recent years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.