Scientific basis and active ingredients of current therapeutic interventions for stroke rehabilitation.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
R. Ranganathan, Carson Doherty, M. Gussert, Eva Kaplinski, M. Koje, C. Krishnan
{"title":"Scientific basis and active ingredients of current therapeutic interventions for stroke rehabilitation.","authors":"R. Ranganathan, Carson Doherty, M. Gussert, Eva Kaplinski, M. Koje, C. Krishnan","doi":"10.3233/RNN-211243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nDespite tremendous advances in the treatment and management of stroke, restoring motor and functional outcomes after stroke continues to be a major clinical challenge. Given the wide range of approaches used in motor rehabilitation, several commentaries have highlighted the lack of a clear scientific basis for different interventions as one critical factor that has led to suboptimal study outcomes.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nTo understand the content of current therapeutic interventions in terms of their active ingredients.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe conducted an analysis of randomized controlled trials in stroke rehabilitation over a 2-year period from 2019-2020.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThere were three primary findings: (i) consistent with prior reports, most studies did not provide an explicit rationale for why the treatment would be expected to work, (ii) most therapeutic interventions mentioned multiple active ingredients and there was not a close correspondence between the active ingredients mentioned versus the active ingredients measured in the study, and (iii) multimodal approaches that involved more than one therapeutic approach tended to be combined in an ad-hoc fashion, indicating the lack of a targeted approach.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThese results highlight the need for strengthening cross-disciplinary connections between basic science and clinical studies, and the need for structured development and testing of therapeutic approaches to find more effective treatment interventions.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-211243","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

BACKGROUND Despite tremendous advances in the treatment and management of stroke, restoring motor and functional outcomes after stroke continues to be a major clinical challenge. Given the wide range of approaches used in motor rehabilitation, several commentaries have highlighted the lack of a clear scientific basis for different interventions as one critical factor that has led to suboptimal study outcomes. OBJECTIVE To understand the content of current therapeutic interventions in terms of their active ingredients. METHODS We conducted an analysis of randomized controlled trials in stroke rehabilitation over a 2-year period from 2019-2020. RESULTS There were three primary findings: (i) consistent with prior reports, most studies did not provide an explicit rationale for why the treatment would be expected to work, (ii) most therapeutic interventions mentioned multiple active ingredients and there was not a close correspondence between the active ingredients mentioned versus the active ingredients measured in the study, and (iii) multimodal approaches that involved more than one therapeutic approach tended to be combined in an ad-hoc fashion, indicating the lack of a targeted approach. CONCLUSION These results highlight the need for strengthening cross-disciplinary connections between basic science and clinical studies, and the need for structured development and testing of therapeutic approaches to find more effective treatment interventions.
当前脑卒中康复治疗干预措施的科学基础和有效成分。
背景尽管在中风的治疗和管理方面取得了巨大进展,但中风后恢复运动和功能结果仍然是一个重大的临床挑战。鉴于运动康复中使用的方法范围广泛,一些评论强调,不同干预措施缺乏明确的科学依据,这是导致研究结果不理想的一个关键因素。目的了解当前治疗干预措施的有效成分。方法:我们对2019-2020年2年期间中风康复的随机对照试验进行了分析。结果有三个主要发现:(i)与之前的报道一致,大多数研究没有提供为什么该治疗有效的明确理由,(ii)大多数治疗干预措施都提到了多种活性成分,并且所提到的活性成分与研究中测量的活性成分之间没有密切的对应关系,以及(iii)涉及一种以上治疗方法的多模式方法往往以特别的方式结合在一起,这表明缺乏有针对性的方法。结论这些结果强调了加强基础科学和临床研究之间跨学科联系的必要性,以及结构化开发和测试治疗方法以寻找更有效的治疗干预措施的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信