Timing and Dose of Upper Limb Motor Intervention After Stroke: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review aimed to investigate timing, dose, and efficacy of upper limb intervention during the first 6 months poststroke. Three online databases were searched up to July 2020. Titles/abstracts/full-text were reviewed independently by 2 authors. Randomized and nonrandomized studies that enrolled people within the first 6 months poststroke, aimed to improve upper limb recovery, and completed preintervention and postintervention assessments were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane reporting tools. Studies were examined by timing (recovery epoch), dose, and intervention type. Two hundred and sixty-one studies were included, representing 228 (n=9704 participants) unique data sets. The number of studies completed increased from one (n=37 participants) between 1980 and 1984 to 91 (n=4417 participants) between 2015 and 2019. Timing of intervention start has not changed (median 38 days, interquartile range [IQR], 22-66) and study sample size remains small (median n=30, IQR 20-48). Most studies were rated high risk of bias (62%). Study participants were enrolled at different recovery epochs: 1 hyperacute (<24 hours), 13 acute (1-7 days), 176 early subacute (8-90 days), 34 late subacute (91-180 days), and 4 were unable to be classified to an epoch. For both the intervention and control groups, the median dose was 45 (IQR, 600-1430) min/session, 1 (IQR, 1-1) session/d, 5 (IQR, 5-5) d/wk for 4 (IQR, 3-5) weeks. The most common interventions tested were electromechanical (n=55 studies), electrical stimulation (n=38 studies), and constraint-induced movement (n=28 studies) therapies. Despite a large and growing body of research, intervention dose and sample size of included studies were often too small to detect clinically important effects. Furthermore, interventions remain focused on subacute stroke recovery with little change in recent decades. A united research agenda that establishes a clear biological understanding of timing, dose, and intervention type is needed to progress stroke recovery research. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42018019367/CRD42018111629.

Factors associated with time to independent walking recovery post-stroke.

BACKGROUND: Past studies have inconsistently identified factors associated with independent walking post-stroke. We investigated the relationship between pre-stroke factors and factors collected acutely after stroke and number of days to walking 50 m unassisted using data from A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT). METHODS: The outcome was recovery of 50 m independent walking, tested from 24 hours to 3 months post-stroke. A set of a priori defined factors (participant demographics: age, sex, handedness; pre-stroke: hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation; stroke-related: stroke severity, stroke type, ischaemic stroke location, stroke hemisphere, thrombolysis) were investigated for association with independent walking using a cause-specific competing risk Cox proportional hazards model. Respective effect sizes are reported as cause-specific adjusted HR (caHR) adjusted for age, stroke severity and AVERT intervention. RESULTS: A total of 2100 participants (median age 73 years, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 7, <1% missing data) with stroke were included. The median time to walking 50 m unassisted was 6 days (IQR 2-63) and 75% achieved independent walking by 3 months. Adjusted Cox regression indicated that slower return to independent walking was associated with older age (caHR 0.651, 95% CI 0.569 to 0.746), diabetes (caHR 0.836, 95% CI 0.740 to 0.945), severe stroke (caHR 0.094, 95% CI 0.072 to 0.122), haemorrhagic stroke (caHR 0.790, 95% CI 0.675 to 0.925) and right hemisphere stroke (caHR 0.796, 95% CI 0.714 to 0.887). CONCLUSION: Our analysis provides robust evidence for important factors associated with independent walking recovery. These findings highlight the need for tailored mobilisation programmes that target subgroups, in particular people with haemorrhagic and severe stroke.

Early mobilisation post-stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of early mobilisation (EM) compared to usual care by meta-analysing individual participant data (IPD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: IPD were sought from randomised controlled trials comparing out-of-bed mobilisation starting within 48 h from stroke onset to usual care for acute stroke patients. Six trials were sourced from a recent Cochrane review. Favourable outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) and death at 3 months post-stroke were compared between both groups using mixed-effect logistic regression modelling. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with respective 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were reported. RESULTS: Out of 2630 participants, 1437 (54.6%) were assigned to EM and 1193 (45.4%) to usual care. Intervention protocols varied considerably between trials. The median (interquartile range) delay to starting mobilisation post-stroke onset was 20 h (14.5-23.8) for EM and 23 h (16.7-34.3) for usual care group. Fewer EM participants had a favourable outcome at 3 months post-stroke compared to the usual care group (678 [48%] vs. 611 [52%]; aOR = 0.75, 95%CI: 0.62-0.92, p = 0.005). No difference in death at 3 months post-stroke between EM and usual care was observed (102 [7%] vs. 84 [7%]; aOR = 1.46, 95%CI: 0.92-2.31, p = 0.108). CONCLUSION: The commencement of mobilisation should only be considered after 24 h post-stroke. Further research is required to identify safe, optimal dose, and timing of EM post-stroke.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONPatients who commenced mobilisation early after stroke had worse outcome than usual care.Insufficient detail about mobilisation interventions or usual care in many studies limits any further interpretation.The commencement of mobilisation should only be considered after 24-h post-stroke.

"Can you hear me now?" Video conference coping strategies and experience during COVID-19 and beyond.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 the workforce quickly adapted to using existing video-conferencing tools in order to work from home. OBJECTIVE: To explore use and experience of remote video-facilitated work practices in response to COVID-19: termed 'COVID Response Zoom-style Interactions (CRAZI)'. METHODS: A cross sectional study via a 66-item online survey for health and medical research and education sector workers. The survey included 8 sections: 1) pre-COVID video-conferencing meeting habits, 2) CRAZI meeting habits, 3) socialising, 4) CRAZI fashion, 5) behaviour standards, 6) family life, 7) future work, 8) participant demographics. Main outcomes were pre-COVID to CRAZI differences in frequency, length and type of video-based meetings, and video-conferencing experience. RESULTS: 202 participants, mostly Australian (median age 36-45, IQR 26-55 years) completed the survey. Women-to-men ratio was 3 : 1, 44.6%had children. COVID-19 changed video-conferencing frequency and maximum meeting size. Most participants found CRAZI meetings tiring and hard. Casual clothes dominated dress code (71.1%), pets were commonly seen. "Can you hear me now" was a commonly heard phrase. Good and bad behaviour were described, with formal codes of CRAZI conduct missing (58.7%) or unknown (21.9%). 76.6%of participants observed a child interrupting a CRAZI meeting, parents were mostly female. Despite challenges, most participants (76.6%) favoured video-conferencing post-pandemic, but preference for continuing to work from home varied. CONCLUSIONS: CRAZI work, while tiring, has fostered different work-practices that may continue beyond the pandemic. Working from home with children adds joy for others, but complexity for workers. Pets may help owners and co-workers cope with the pandemic.

Early Mobilization After Stroke: Do Clinical Practice Guidelines Support Clinicians' Decision-Making?

Importance: Early mobilization, out-of-bed activity, is a component of acute stroke unit care; however, stroke patient heterogeneity requires complex decision-making. Clinically credible and applicable CPGs are needed to support and optimize the delivery of care. In this study, we are specifically exploring the role of clinical practice guidelines to support individual patient-level decision-making by stroke clinicians about early mobilization post-stroke. Methods: Our study uses a novel, two-pronged approach. (1) A review of CPGs containing recommendations for early mobilization practices published after 2015 was appraised using purposely selected items from the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence (AGREE-REX) tool relevant to decision-making for clinicians. (2) A cross-sectional study involving semi-structured interviews with Australian expert stroke clinicians representing content experts and CPG target users. Every CPG was independently assessed against the AGREE-REX standard by two reviewers. Expert stroke clinicians, invited via email, were recruited between June 2019 to March 2020.The main outcomes from the review was the proportion of criteria addressed for each AGREE-REX item by individual and all CPG(s). The main cross-sectional outcomes were the distributions of stroke clinicians' responses about the utility of CPGs, specific areas of uncertainty in early mobilization decision-making, and suggested parameters for inclusion in future early mobilization CPGs. Results: In 18 identified CPGs, many did not adequately address the "Evidence" and "Applicability to Patients" AGREE-REX items. Out of 30 expert stroke clinicians (11 physicians [37%], 11 physiotherapists [37%], 8 nurses [26%]; median [IQR] years of experience, 14 [10-25]), 47% found current CPGs "too broad or vague," while 40% rely on individual clinical judgement and interpretation of the evidence to select an evidence-based choice of action. The areas of uncertainty in decision-making revealed four key suggestions: (1) more granular descriptions of patient and stroke characteristics for appropriate tailoring of decisions, (2) clear statements about when clinical flexibility is appropriate, (3) detailed description of the intervention dose, and (4) physical assessment criteria including safety parameters. Conclusions: The lack of specificity, clinical applicability, and adaptability of current CPGs to effectively respond to the heterogeneous clinical stroke context has provided a clear direction for improvement.

Look closer: The multidimensional patterns of post-stroke burden behind the modified Rankin Scale.

BACKGROUND: The utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale, representing patient perspectives of quality of life, is a newly proposed measure to improve the interpretability of the modified Rankin Scale. Despite obvious advantages, such weighting imperfectly reflects the multidimensional patterns of post-stroke burden. AIMS: To investigate multidimensional patterns of post-stroke burden formed by individual domains of Assessment of Quality of Life and Barthel Index for each modified Rankin Scale category. METHODS: In the A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (n = 2104), modified Rankin Scale scores and modified Rankin Scale-stratified Barthel Index scores of Self-care and Mobility, and Assessment of Quality of Life scores of Independent Living, Senses, Mental Health and Relationships were collected at three months. The multivariate relationship between individual Assessment of Quality of Life and Barthel Index domains, and modified Rankin Scale was investigated using random effects linear regression models with respective interaction terms. RESULTS: Of 2104 patients, simultaneously collected Assessment of Quality of Life, Barthel Index and modified Rankin Scale scores at three months were available in 1870 patients. While individual Assessment of Quality of Life and Barthel Index domain scores decreased significantly as modified Rankin Scale increased (p < 0.0001), the patterns of decrease differed by domains (p < 0.0001). Patients with modified Rankin Scale 0-1 had the largest post-stroke burden in the Mental Health and Relationship domains, while patients with modified Rankin Scale >3 showed the greatest burden in Independent Living, Mobility and Self-care domains. CONCLUSIONS: Across the modified Rankin Scale, individual domains are varyingly impacted demonstrating unique patterns of post-stroke burden, which facilitates appropriate assessment, articulation and interpretation of the modified Rankin Scale and utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale.

Utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale: Still too crude to be a truly patient-centric primary outcome measure?

BACKGROUND: The utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale (UW-mRS) is an outcome measure recently proposed to improve statistical efficiency and interpretability of the mRS. Statistical properties of the UW-mRS have been well investigated, but construct validity has yet to be established. AIMS: To investigate the construct validity of the UW-mRS as a primary outcome measure by assessing variability in utility values within and between mRS categories, over time post-stroke, and by different derivation methods. METHODS: UW-mRS was derived using assessment of quality of life (AQoL-4D) and mRS scores at 3 and 12 months (n = 2030) from a large randomized controlled trial, A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis of AQoL-4D was conducted to differentiate between sequential mRS categories. Intraclass correlation was used to explore variability in utility values over time post-stroke, UW-mRS values, and derivation methods from multiple studies. RESULTS: UW-mRS values for mRS categories 0-6 at three months were 0.80, 0.78, 0.63, 0.37, 0.11, 0.03, and 0. Based on AQoL-4D utility values, areas under the ROC curve varied from 0.54 to 0.87. Time post-stroke explained 42%-56% of variability in AQoL-4D utility values in patients with no change in mRS between 3 and 12 months. The choice of the derivation method contributed to 25% of the variability in UW-mRS values. CONCLUSIONS: The high variability in utility values between and within mRS categories, over time post-stroke, and using different derivation methods is not adequately reflected in the UW-mRS. These threats to construct validity warrant caution when using UW-mRS as a primary outcome measure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000185561).