Deans' stroke musings: Stroke rehabilitation research needs to be different to make a difference

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, June 27, 2016

Stroke rehabilitation research needs to be different to make a difference

Except that our fucking failures of stroke associations don't even have a strategy for what research needs to be done to solve all the problems in stroke.
http://f1000research.com/articles/5-1467/v1

Cathy M. Stinear

Author affiliations

Grant information

This article is included in the F1000 Faculty Reviews channel.

Abstract

Stroke continues to be a major cause of adult disability. In contrast to progress in stroke prevention and acute medical management, there have been no major breakthroughs in rehabilitation therapies. Most stroke rehabilitation trials are conducted with patients at the chronic stage of recovery and this limits their translation to clinical practice. Encouragingly, several multi-centre rehabilitation trials, conducted during the first few weeks after stroke, have recently been reported; however, all were negative. There is a renewed focus on improving the quality of stroke rehabilitation research through greater harmonisation and standardisation of terminology, trial design, measures, and reporting. (Shit, you idiots you solve for exactly how neuroplasticity or neurogenesis is repeatable. Quit thinking microscopic.)However, there is also a need for more pragmatic trials to test interventions in a way that assists their translation to clinical practice. Novel interventions with a strong mechanistic rationale need to be tested in both explanatory and pragmatic trials if we are to make a meaningful difference to stroke rehabilitation practice and outcomes.

Corresponding author: Cathy M. Stinear How to cite: . F1000Research 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):1467 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8722.1) Copyright: © 2016 Stinear CM. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Competing interests: The author is a member of the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.
First published: 22 Jun 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):1467 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8722.1) Latest published: 22 Jun 2016, 5(F1000 Faculty Rev):1467 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8722.1)