Deans' stroke musings: Dissimilar outcomes of apparently similar procedures as a challenge to clinical neurorehabilitation and basic research: When the same is not the same

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Dissimilar outcomes of apparently similar procedures as a challenge to clinical neurorehabilitation and basic research: When the same is not the same

Your researcher can explain this. My take on it is that the starting point for subjects is unknown because I never see objective scans listed as being done to document damage. With no objective starting point repeatable research is not possible. This might explain why evidence-based medicine is so hard to come by in neural damage.
http://search.naric.com/research/rehab/redesign_record.cfm?search=2&type=all&criteria=J64746&phrase=no&rec=119897
NARIC Accession Number: J64746. What's this?
ISSN: 1053-8135.
Author(s): Wilms, Inge; Mogensen, Jesper.
Publication Year: 2011.
Number of Pages: 7.
Abstract: Article attempts to explain why apparently similar behaviors may not be associated with activation of the same cognitive elements and neural processes in rehabilitation. In the study of the brain and how it adapts to changes or injury, researchers sometimes come across situations where apparently similar types of tests or training do not achieve similar outcome results. This is true, in particular, within the field of computer-based rehabilitation where paper-and-pencil tests and training is converted to computer. Through the use of the REF (Reorganization of Elementary Functions) model, this article raises the attention to the fact that supposedly similar settings may not, in fact, elicit similar results and caution therapists and researchers who work with rehabilitation of brain injury. The authors provide examples which illustrates that “the same is not always the same” in terms of cognition and behavior in what is assumed to be similar environments.
Descriptor Terms: BEHAVIOR, BRAIN INJURIES, COGNITIVE DISABILITIES, COMPUTER APPLICATIONS, NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, OUTCOMES, REHABILITATION RESEARCH, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.