Deans' stroke musings: Methodological Quality of Motor Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials in Stroke Rehabilitation

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.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Methodological Quality of Motor Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials in Stroke Rehabilitation

Did this research tell us anything useful at all? In understandable English; What the hell was the reason behind doing this and the results?
http://www.strokejournal.org/article/S1052-3057%2815%2900510-8/abstract

Amanda McIntyre, RN, and MSc

Nerissa Campbell, PhD

Julianne Vermeer, MPH

Rachel Mays, BSc

Shannon Janzen, MSc

Robert Teasell, MD, FRCPC

Received: July 27, 2015; Received in revised form: September 15, 2015; Accepted: September 21, 2015; Published Online: October 20, 2015

Publication stage: In Press Corrected Proof

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.09.024

Share on mendeley Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email More Sharing Services

Article Info

Purchase access to this article (PDF Included)

$31.50 USD (24 hour online access)

Subscribe to this title

Purpose

The objective of the study was to evaluate the methodological quality of motor intervention randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the stroke rehabilitation literature and to examine trends in quality over time.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted for all English articles (published up to December 2013) examining rehabilitation for motor recovery poststroke. All RCTs with a human sample, of which at least 50% had a stroke, were included in the analysis. A Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score was assigned to assess methodological quality. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine adherence to quality items overall and over time, with post hoc t-tests performed where appropriate.

Results

Six hundred seventy-six RCTs met inclusion criteria, of which 32.0% had excellent, 42.0% good, 23.1% fair, and 3.0% poor methodological qualities. The overall mean PEDro score was 6.6 ± 1.6; with scores improving significantly between 1979-1983 and 2009-2013 (5.0 ± 1.4 versus 7.0 ± 1.5; P = .0003); however, no significant improvements in individual items were found (P > .05).

Conclusions

This study showed improvements in the total methodological quality of motor intervention RCTs in stroke rehabilitation over time.??? However, no relationship was found between individual quality items and improvement over time.