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, May 10, 2016

External validity of post-stroke interventional gait rehabilitation studies

So we still have NO stroke protocol on regaining walking. Damn are these stroke medical professionals not interested in promoting the public good for survivors?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10749357.2016.1176796
DOI:
10.1080/10749357.2016.1176796
Michal Kafria* & Ruth Dicksteina

Abstract

Gait rehabilitation is a major component of stroke rehabilitation, and is supported by extensive research. The objective of this review was to examine the external validity of intervention studies aimed at improving gait in individuals post-stroke. To that end, two aspects of these studies were assessed: subjects’ exclusion criteria and the ecological validity of the intervention, as manifested by the intervention’s technological complexity and delivery setting. Additionally, we examined whether the target population as inferred from the titles/abstracts is broader than the population actually represented by the reported samples.
Methods: We systematically researched PubMed for intervention studies to improve gait post-stroke, working backwards from the beginning of 2014. Exclusion criteria, the technological complexity of the intervention (defined as either elaborate or simple), setting, and description of the target population in the titles/abstracts were recorded.
Results: Fifty-two studies were reviewed. The samples were exclusive, with recurrent stroke, co-morbidities, cognitive status, walking level, and residency being major reasons for exclusion. In one half of the studies, the intervention was elaborate. Descriptions of participants in the title/abstract in almost one half of the studies included only the diagnosis (stroke or comparable terms) and its stage (acute, subacute, and chronic).
Conclusions: The external validity of a substantial number of intervention studies about rehabilitation of gait post-stroke appears to be limited by exclusivity of the samples as well as by deficiencies in ecological validity of the interventions. These limitations are not accurately reflected in the titles or abstracts of the studies.

No comments:

Post a Comment