67
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Rehabilitation of Motor Function after Stroke: A Multiple Systematic Review Focused on Techniques to Stimulate Upper Extremity Recovery

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Stroke is one of the leading causes for disability worldwide. Motor function deficits due to stroke affect the patients' mobility, their limitation in daily life activities, their participation in society and their odds of returning to professional activities. All of these factors contribute to a low overall quality of life. Rehabilitation training is the most effective way to reduce motor impairments in stroke patients. This multiple systematic review focuses both on standard treatment methods and on innovating rehabilitation techniques used to promote upper extremity motor function in stroke patients. A total number of 5712 publications on stroke rehabilitation was systematically reviewed for relevance and quality with regards to upper extremity motor outcome. This procedure yielded 270 publications corresponding to the inclusion criteria of the systematic review. Recent technology-based interventions in stroke rehabilitation including non-invasive brain stimulation, robot-assisted training, and virtual reality immersion are addressed. Finally, a decisional tree based on evidence from the literature and characteristics of stroke patients is proposed. At present, the stroke rehabilitation field faces the challenge to tailor evidence-based treatment strategies to the needs of the individual stroke patient. Interventions can be combined in order to achieve the maximal motor function recovery for each patient. Though the efficacy of some interventions may be under debate, motor skill learning, and some new technological approaches give promising outcome prognosis in stroke motor rehabilitation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references234

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials.

          Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is common practice in systematic reviews. However, the reliability of data obtained with most quality assessment scales has not been established. This report describes 2 studies designed to investigate the reliability of data obtained with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale developed to rate the quality of RCTs evaluating physical therapist interventions. In the first study, 11 raters independently rated 25 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database. In the second study, 2 raters rated 120 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database, and disagreements were resolved by a third rater; this generated a set of individual rater and consensus ratings. The process was repeated by independent raters to create a second set of individual and consensus ratings. Reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items was calculated using multirater kappas, and reliability of the total (summed) score was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC [1,1]). The kappa value for each of the 11 items ranged from.36 to.80 for individual assessors and from.50 to.79 for consensus ratings generated by groups of 2 or 3 raters. The ICC for the total score was.56 (95% confidence interval=.47-.65) for ratings by individuals, and the ICC for consensus ratings was.68 (95% confidence interval=.57-.76). The reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items varied from "fair" to "substantial," and the reliability of the total PEDro score was "fair" to "good."
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.

            This article is based on a consensus conference, which took place in Certosa di Pontignano, Siena (Italy) on March 7-9, 2008, intended to update the previous safety guidelines for the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in research and clinical settings. Over the past decade the scientific and medical community has had the opportunity to evaluate the safety record of research studies and clinical applications of TMS and repetitive TMS (rTMS). In these years the number of applications of conventional TMS has grown impressively, new paradigms of stimulation have been developed (e.g., patterned repetitive TMS) and technical advances have led to new device designs and to the real-time integration of TMS with electroencephalography (EEG), positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Thousands of healthy subjects and patients with various neurological and psychiatric diseases have undergone TMS allowing a better assessment of relative risks. The occurrence of seizures (i.e., the most serious TMS-related acute adverse effect) has been extremely rare, with most of the few new cases receiving rTMS exceeding previous guidelines, often in patients under treatment with drugs which potentially lower the seizure threshold. The present updated guidelines review issues of risk and safety of conventional TMS protocols, address the undesired effects and risks of emerging TMS interventions, the applications of TMS in patients with implanted electrodes in the central nervous system, and safety aspects of TMS in neuroimaging environments. We cover recommended limits of stimulation parameters and other important precautions, monitoring of subjects, expertise of the rTMS team, and ethical issues. While all the recommendations here are expert based, they utilize published data to the extent possible.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation.

              In this paper we demonstrate in the intact human the possibility of a non-invasive modulation of motor cortex excitability by the application of weak direct current through the scalp. Excitability changes of up to 40 %, revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation, were accomplished and lasted for several minutes after the end of current stimulation. Excitation could be achieved selectively by anodal stimulation, and inhibition by cathodal stimulation. By varying the current intensity and duration, the strength and duration of the after-effects could be controlled. The effects were probably induced by modification of membrane polarisation. Functional alterations related to post-tetanic potentiation, short-term potentiation and processes similar to postexcitatory central inhibition are the likely candidates for the excitability changes after the end of stimulation. Transcranial electrical stimulation using weak current may thus be a promising tool to modulate cerebral excitability in a non-invasive, painless, reversible, selective and focal way.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Hum Neurosci
                Front Hum Neurosci
                Front. Hum. Neurosci.
                Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1662-5161
                13 September 2016
                2016
                : 10
                : 442
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Brugmann University Hospital Brussels, Belgium
                [2] 2Systems and Cognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Neuroscience, Université Catholique de Louvain Brussels, Belgium
                [3] 3Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Brussels, Belgium
                [4] 4Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l'Ardenne Libramont, Belgium
                [5] 5Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Motor Control Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Leuven, Belgium
                [6] 6Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain Brussels, Belgium
                Author notes

                Edited by: Bernard Dan, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

                Reviewed by: Veena A. Nair, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA; Sahil Bajaj, University of Arizona, USA

                *Correspondence: Samar M. Hatem samar.hatem@ 123456chu-brugmann.be
                Article
                10.3389/fnhum.2016.00442
                5020059
                27679565
                1eac0a18-ea69-4d18-90ad-f98f2844e052
                Copyright © 2016 Hatem, Saussez, della Faille, Prist, Zhang, Dispa and Bleyenheuft.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 13 July 2016
                : 18 August 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 217, Pages: 22, Words: 18609
                Funding
                Funded by: Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS 10.13039/501100002661
                Categories
                Neuroscience
                Review

                Neurosciences
                rehabilitation,upper extremity,stroke,review,paresis,systematic review
                Neurosciences
                rehabilitation, upper extremity, stroke, review, paresis, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article