Biomarkers of Stroke Recovery: Consensus-Based Core Recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

Absolute crap like this is why we never get around to solving all the  problems in stroke. Survivors don't care about potential for recovery, they want 100% recovery. GET THERE YOU BLITHERING IDIOTS!  Look at all these Ph.Ds that don't know what needs to be done in stroke.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1545968317732680?

Show all authors

Lara A. Boyd, PhD¹

Lara A. Boyd

1Department of Physical Therapy & the Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, Kathryn S. Hayward, PhD²

Kathryn S. Hayward

2Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Stroke Division, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Australia
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, Nick S. Ward, MD³

Nick S. Ward

3Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

,

Cathy M. Stinear, PhD⁴

Cathy M. Stinear

4Department of Medicine and Centre for Brain Research, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, Charlotte Rosso, MD, PhD⁵

Charlotte Rosso

5Inserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06 UMR S 1127, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, ICM, France; AP-HP, Stroke Unit, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, France
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, Rebecca J Fisher, PhD⁶

Rebecca J Fisher

6Division of Rehabilitation & Ageing, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, Alexandre R. Carter⁷

Alexandre R. Carter

7Department of Neurology, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, Alex P. Leff, PhD⁸

Alex P. Leff

8Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neurology & Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, Queens Square, London, UK
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, David A. Copland, PhD⁹

David A. Copland

9School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; and University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, Australia
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, Leeanne M. Carey, PhD¹⁰

Leeanne M. Carey

10School of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe, University, Bundoora, Australia; and Neurorehabilitation and Recovery, Stroke Division, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Australia
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, Leonardo G. Cohen, MD¹¹

Leonardo G. Cohen

11Human Cortical Physiology and Neurorehabilitation Section, NINDS, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, D. Michele Basso, EdD, PT¹²

D. Michele Basso

12School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, Jane M. Maguire, PhD¹³

Jane M. Maguire

13Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Sydney, Australia
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

, Steven C. Cramer, PhD¹⁴

Steven C. Cramer

14University of California, Irvine, CA, USA; Depts. Neurology, Anatomy & Neurobiology, and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Irvine, CA, USA
See all articles by this author

Search Google Scholar for this author

...

First Published December 12, 2017 Research Article

https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968317732680

Article information

Article Information

Volume: 31 issue: 10-11, page(s): 864-876

Article first published online: December 12, 2017; Issue published: October 1, 2017

https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968317732680

Lara A. Boyd, PhD¹, Kathryn S. Hayward, PhD², Nick S. Ward, MD³, Cathy M. Stinear, PhD⁴, Charlotte Rosso, MD, PhD⁵, Rebecca J Fisher, PhD⁶, Alexandre R. Carter⁷, Alex P. Leff, PhD⁸, David A. Copland, PhD⁹, Leeanne M. Carey, PhD¹⁰, Leonardo G. Cohen, MD¹¹, D. Michele Basso, EdD, PT¹², Jane M. Maguire, PhD¹³, Steven C. Cramer, PhD¹⁴

¹Department of Physical Therapy & the Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

²Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Stroke Division, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Australia

³Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK

⁴Department of Medicine and Centre for Brain Research, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

⁵Inserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06 UMR S 1127, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, ICM, France; AP-HP, Stroke Unit, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, France

⁶Division of Rehabilitation & Ageing, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

⁷Department of Neurology, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO, USA

⁸Department of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neurology & Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, Queens Square, London, UK

⁹School of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; and University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, Australia

¹⁰School of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe, University, Bundoora, Australia; and Neurorehabilitation and Recovery, Stroke Division, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Australia

¹¹Human Cortical Physiology and Neurorehabilitation Section, NINDS, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

¹²School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

¹³Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Sydney, Australia

¹⁴University of California, Irvine, CA, USA; Depts. Neurology, Anatomy & Neurobiology, and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Irvine, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

*This article was first published in International Journal of Stroke 2017, Volume 12, Issue 5, pages 480–493. To request permission to re-use any part of this article, please contact SAGE Publishing: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journals-permissions.

Lara A. Boyd, PhD, University of British Columbia, 212, 2177 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. Email: lara.boyd@ubc.ca

• Abstract
• Full Text
• References
• PDF

Abstract

Section:

The most difficult clinical questions in stroke rehabilitation are “What is this patient’s potential for recovery?”(WRONG, WRONG, WRONG; It is how to get 100% recovered) and “What is the best rehabilitation strategy for this person, given her/his clinical profile?” Without answers to these questions, clinicians struggle to make decisions regarding the content and focus of therapy(the focus is simple, 100% recovery), and researchers design studies that inadvertently mix participants who have a high likelihood of responding with those who do not(Stop cherry picking participants for research, everyone deserves 100% recovery). Developing and implementing biomarkers that distinguish patient subgroups will help address these issues and unravel the factors important to the recovery process. The goal of the present paper is to provide a consensus statement regarding the current state of the evidence for stroke recovery biomarkers. Biomarkers of motor, somatosensory, cognitive and language domains across the recovery timeline post-stroke are considered; with focus on brain structure and function, and exclusion of blood markers and genetics. We provide evidence for biomarkers that are considered ready to be included in clinical trials, as well as others that are promising but not ready and so represent a developmental priority. We conclude with an example that illustrates the utility of biomarkers in recovery and rehabilitation research, demonstrating how the inclusion of a biomarker may enhance future clinical trials. In this way, we propose a way forward for when and where we can include biomarkers to advance the efficacy of the practice of, and research into, rehabilitation and recovery after stroke.