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, July 6, 2020

Systematic review of outcome measures of walking training using electromechanical and robotic devices in patients with stroke

Of the scales listed I only did the 10 meter Walk test and the Berg Balance. I thought the Berg Balance was useless, there was nothing done after failing parts of the test to fix those problems.  There should have been protocols to fix the failure on not being able to stand one legged on the affected leg.

Systematic review of outcome measures of walking training using electromechanical and robotic devices in patients with stroke

2013, Journal of rehabilitation medicine : official journal of the UEMS European Board of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine
 Christian Geroin, PT 1*, 
Stefano Mazzoleni, PhD 3*, 
Nicola Smania, MD 1,2, 
Marialuisa Gandolf,MD, PhD 1, 
Donatella Bonaiuti, MD 4, 
Giulio Gasperini, MD 5, 
Daniele Munari, PT 1, 
Patrizio Sale, MD, PhD 6, 
Andreas Waldner, MD 7, 
Raffaele Spidalieri, MD 8, 
Federica Bovolenta, MD 9, 
Alessandro Picelli, MD 1, 
Federico Posteraro, MD 10, 
Franco Molteni, MD 5, 
Marco Franceschini, MD 6 
and the Italian Robotic Neurorehabilitation Research Group (IRNRG)
From the
1 Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Centre (CRRNC), Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of Verona,
2 Neurological Rehabilitation Unit Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Integrata Verona,
3 The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa,
4 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, S. Gerardo Hospital, Monza,
5 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Ospedale Valduce, Villa Beretta, Costamasnaga, Lecco,
6 Department of Rehabilitation IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Rome,
7 Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Private Hospital Villa Melitta, Bolzano,
8 Istituto di Riabilitazione Neurologica “Madre Della Divina Prov- videnza” di Agazzi, Arezzo,
9 Medicine Rehabilitation NOCSAE Hospital AUSL of Modena, Modena and
10 Neurological Rehabilitation Unit, Auxilium Vitae Rehabilitation Center, Volterra, Italy. *Both authors contributed equally to this work.
   Objective:
 The aim of this systematic review was to identify appropriate selection criteria of clinical scales for future trials, starting from those most commonly reported in the literature, according to their psychometric properties and
International Classication of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains.
 Data sources:
A computerized literature research of articles
was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINALH, Pub-Med, PsychINFO and Scopus databases.
 Study selection:
 Clinical trials evaluating the effects of electromechanical and robot-assisted gait training trials in stroke survivors.
 Data extraction:
Fifteen independent authors performed an extensive literature review.
 Data synthesis:
 A total of 45 scales was identied from 27 studies involving 966 subjects. The most commonly used outcome measures were: Functional Ambulation Category (18 studies), 10-Meter Walking Test (13 studies), Motricity Index (12 studies), 6-Minute Walking Test (11 studies), Rivermead Mobility Index (8 studies) and Berg Balance Scale (8 studies). According to the ICF domains 1 outcome measure was categorized into Body Function and Structure, 5 into Activity and none into Participation.
Conclusion:
The most commonly used scales evaluated the basic components of walking. Future studies should also include instrumental evaluation. Criteria for scale selection should be based on the ICF framework, psychometric properties and patient characteristics.
 Key words:
 stroke; lower limb; rehabilitation; motor recovery; robot; training; therapy; physiotherapy; function; study; robot- assisted, trial. J Rehabil Med 2013; 45: 987–996
Correspondence address: Christian Geroin, Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Centre (CRRNC), Depart-ment of Neurological, and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy. E-mail: christian.geroin@univr.it
Accepted Jun 17, 2013; Epub ahead of print Oct 17, 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment