| 1. |
- Walker, Marion F, et al.
(författare)
-
Improving the Development, Monitoring and Reporting of Stroke Rehabilitation Research: Consensus-Based Core Recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Neurorehabilitation and neural repair. - : SAGE Publications. - 1552-6844 .- 1545-9683. ; 31:10-11, s. 877-884
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Recent reviews have demonstrated that the quality of stroke rehabilitation research has continued to improve over the last four decades but despite this progress, there are still many barriers in moving the field forward. Rigorous development, monitoring and complete reporting of interventions in stroke trials are essential in providing rehabilitation evidence that is robust, meaningful and implementable. An international partnership of stroke rehabilitation experts committed to develop consensus-based core recommendations with a remit of addressing the issues identified as limiting stroke rehabilitation research in the areas of developing, monitoring and reporting stroke rehabilitation interventions. Work exploring each of the three areas took place via multiple teleconferences and a two-day meeting in Philadelphia in May 2016. A total of 15 recommendations were made. To validate the need for the recommendations, the group reviewed all stroke rehabilitation trials published in 2015 (n=182 papers). Our review highlighted that the majority of publications did not clearly describe how interventions were developed or monitored during the trial. In particular, under-reporting of the theoretical rationale for the intervention and the components of the intervention call into question many interventions that have been evaluated for efficacy. More trials were found to have addressed the reporting of interventions recommendations than those related to development or monitoring. Nonetheless, the majority of reporting recommendations were still not adequately described. To progress the field of stroke rehabilitation research and to ensure stroke patients receive optimal evidence-based clinical care, we urge the research community to endorse and adopt our recommendations.
|
|
| 2. |
- Walker, Marion F., et al.
(författare)
-
Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable
- 2017
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Stroke. - : SAGE Publications. - 1747-4930 .- 1747-4949. ; 12, s. 472-479
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2017, © 2017 World Stroke Organization. Recent reviews have demonstrated that the quality of stroke rehabilitation research has continued to improve over the last four decades but despite this progress, there are still many barriers in moving the field forward. Rigorous development, monitoring and complete reporting of interventions in stroke trials are essential in providing rehabilitation evidence that is robust, meaningful and implementable. An international partnership of stroke rehabilitation experts committed to develop consensus-based core recommendations with a remit of addressing the issues identified as limiting stroke rehabilitation research in the areas of developing, monitoring and reporting stroke rehabilitation interventions. Work exploring each of the three areas took place via multiple teleconferences and a two-day meeting in Philadelphia in May 2016. A total of 15 recommendations were made. To validate the need for the recommendations, the group reviewed all stroke rehabilitation trials published in 2015 (n = 182 papers). Our review highlighted that the majority of publications did not clearly describe how interventions were developed or monitored during the trial. In particular, under-reporting of the theoretical rationale for the intervention and the components of the intervention call into question many interventions that have been evaluated for efficacy. More trials were found to have addressed the reporting of interventions recommendations than those related to development or monitoring. Nonetheless, the majority of reporting recommendations were still not adequately described. To progress the field of stroke rehabilitation research and to ensure stroke patients receive optimal evidence-based clinical care, we urge the research community to endorse and adopt our recommendations.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ali, Myzoon, et al.
(författare)
-
Prevalence, Trajectory, and Predictors of Poststroke Pain: Retrospective Analysis of Pooled Clinical Trial Data Set
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Stroke. - 1524-4628. ; 54:12, s. 3107-3116
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Poststroke pain remains underdiagnosed and inadequately managed. To inform the optimum time to initiate interventions, we examined prevalence, trajectory, and participant factors associated with poststroke pain. METHODS: Eligible studies from the VISTA (Virtual International Stroke Trials Archives) included an assessment of pain. Analyses of individual participant data examined demography, pain, mobility, independence, language, anxiety/depression, and vitality. Pain assessments were standardized to the European Quality of Life Scale (European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level) pain domain, describing no, moderate, or extreme pain. We described pain prevalence, associations between participant characteristics, and pain using multivariable models. RESULTS: From 94 studies (n>48 000 individual participant data) in VISTA, 10 (n=10 002 individual participant data) included a pain assessment. Median age was 70.0 years (interquartile range [59.0-77.1]), 5560 (55.6%) were male, baseline stroke severity was National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 10 (interquartile range [7-15]). Reports of extreme pain ranged between 3% and 9.5% and were highest beyond 2 years poststroke (31/328 [9.5%]); pain trajectory varied by study. Poorer independence was significantly associated with presence of moderate or extreme pain (5 weeks-3 months odds ratio [OR], 1.5 [95% CI, 1.4-1.6]; 4-6 months OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.3-2.1]; >6 months OR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.2-2.0]), and increased severity of pain (5 weeks-3 months: OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]; 4-6 months OR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]; >6 months, OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]), after adjusting for covariates. Anxiety/depression and lower vitality were each associated with pain severity. CONCLUSIONS: Between 3% and 9.5% of participants reported extreme poststroke pain; the presence and severity of pain were independently associated with dependence at each time point. Future studies could determine whether and when interventions may reduce the prevalence and severity of poststroke pain.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ali, Myzoon, et al.
(författare)
-
Validation of general pain scores from multidomain assessment tools in stroke
- 2024
-
Ingår i: FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY. - 1664-2295. ; 15
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose We describe how well general pain reported in multidomain assessment tools correlated with pain-specific assessment tools; associations between general pain, activities of daily living and independence after stroke.Materials and methods Analyses of individual participant data (IPD) from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA) described correlation coefficients examining (i) direct comparisons of assessments from pain-specific and multidomain assessment tools that included pain, (ii) indirect comparisons of pain assessments with the Barthel Index (BI) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and (iii) whether pain identification could be enhanced by accounting for reported usual activities, self-care, mobility and anxiety/depression; factors associated with pain.Results European Quality of Life 3- and 5-Level (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L), RAND 36 Item Health Survey 1.0 (SF-36) or the 0-10 Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) were available from 10/94 studies (IPD = 10,002). The 0-10 NPRS was the only available pain-specific assessment tool and was a reference for comparison with other tools. Pearson correlation coefficients between the 0-10 NPRS and (A) the EQ-5D-3L and (B) EQ5D-5 L were r = 0.572 (n = 436) and r = 0.305 (n = 1,134), respectively. mRS was better aligned with pain by EQ-5D-3L (n = 8,966; r = 0.340) than by SF-36 (n = 623; r = 0.318). BI aligned better with pain by SF-36 (n = 623; r = -0.320). Creating a composite score using the EQ-5D 3 L and 5 L comprising pain, mobility, usual-activities, self-care and anxiety/depression did not improve correlation with the 0-10 NPRS.Discussion The EQ-5D-3L pain domain aligned better than the EQ-5D-5L with the 0-10 NPRS and may inform general pain description where resources and assessment burden hinder use of additional, pain-specific assessments.
|
|
