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.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Management of Central Poststroke Pain

So no one knows a damn thing about CPSP. A great stroke association would be in the thick of this research figuring out how to use this knowledge to solve CPSP. But we have craptastic stroke associations whose highest calling is press releases. You are completely on your own. Start hiring researchers to solve your stroke problems. Good luck on your pain, you'll need it.
 http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/46/10/2853.abstract?sid=11c952b2-13f1-4c37-8bf6-06699a5d6f8a
  1. Jason W. Busse, PhD
+ Author Affiliations
  1. From the Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (S.M.M., R.K., Z.I., L.T., G.H.G., J.W.B.), Anesthesia (D.N.B., L.T., J.W.B.), Medicine (A.P., G.H.G.), and Pediatrics (L.T.) and Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care (L.W., R.C., D.N.B., A.P., S.M.K., J.W.B.), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, OH (S.M.M.); Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (A.A.); Departments of Clinical Neurological Sciences and Oncology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada (D.E.M.); Department of Outcomes Research, Cleveland Clinic, OH (A.T., D.I.S.); and Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Divisions of Endocrinology and Diabetes, and Health Care and Policy Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (V.M.M.).
  1. Correspondence to Sohail M. Mulla, MSc, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, HSC-2C7, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada. E-mail mullasm@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

Background and Purpose—Central poststroke pain is a chronic neuropathic disorder that follows a stroke. Current research on its management is limited, and no review has evaluated all therapies for central poststroke pain.
Methods—We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate therapies for central poststroke pain. We identified eligible trials, in any language, by systematic searches of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO. Eligible trials (1) enrolled ≥10 patients with central poststroke pain; (2) randomly assigned them to an active therapy or a control arm; and (3) collected outcome data ≥14 days after treatment. Pairs of reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts of identified citations, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible trials, and extracted information from eligible studies. We used a modified Cochrane tool to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, and collected patient-important outcomes according to recommendations by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. We conducted, when possible, random effects meta-analyses, and evaluated our certainty in treatment effects using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System.
Results—Eight eligible English language randomized controlled trials (459 patients) tested anticonvulsants, an antidepressant, an opioid antagonist, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and acupuncture. Results suggested that all therapies had little to no effect on pain and other patient-important outcomes. Our certainty in the treatment estimates ranged from very low to low.
Conclusions—Our findings are inconsistent with major clinical practice guidelines; the available evidence suggests no beneficial effects of any therapies that researchers have evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

No comments:

Post a Comment