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.

Saturday, July 18, 2020

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

Useless. What should have been the result is what is the best objective measurement of gait. This just continues to allow stroke staff to do their own thing rather than what is best for survivor rehab.

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

 2013, Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
 Christian Geroin, PT 1*, 
Stefano Mazzoleni, PhD 3*, 
Nicola Smania, MD 1,2, 
Marialuisa Gandolfi, 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 Classification 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 elec-
tromechanical 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 identified 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

No comments:

Post a Comment