ReviewStroke2026
Neural Repair Therapies After Stroke: II. Principles for Clinical Trials.
Review in Stroke, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Stroke remains a leading cause of human disability worldwide. Additional approaches beyond acute stroke therapies are needed to improve patient outcomes. Neural repair therapies focus on promoting neural plasticity in surviving tissue rather than modifying the acute injury; examples include behavioral training, drugs, biological therapies, and neural stimulation. This review discusses principles related to patient selection, control group design, intervention timing, choice of outcome measures, experience-dependent plasticity, use of biomarkers, and statistical considerations, each of which emerges from a review of key stroke recovery trials. Patient selection strategies may benefit from incorporating neuroimaging and neurophysiology biomarkers to ensure viability of treatment targets. Modality-specific outcome measures offer advantages over global disability scales for repair-based trials. The timing of intervention is critical given evolving poststroke biology and the existence of critical periods for plasticity. Repair-based therapies benefit from pairing with concomitant experience of sufficient intensity and appropriate type to shape and reinforce brain circuits. Consideration of these key principles is expected to improve the design of trials that aim to promote neural repair and improve function after stroke. Researchers and clinicians should attend to these factors when designing and interpreting clinical trials to maximize the likelihood that neural repair therapies will improve disability after stroke.
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.