R. Ranganathan, Carson Doherty, M. Gussert, Eva Kaplinski, M. Koje, C. Krishnan
{"title":"当前脑卒中康复治疗干预措施的科学基础和有效成分。","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":21130,"journal":{"name":"Restorative neurology and neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"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\":21130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Restorative neurology and neuroscience\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Restorative neurology and neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-211243\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restorative neurology and neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-211243","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Scientific basis and active ingredients of current therapeutic interventions for stroke rehabilitation.
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.
期刊介绍:
This interdisciplinary journal publishes papers relating to the plasticity and response of the nervous system to accidental or experimental injuries and their interventions, transplantation, neurodegenerative disorders and experimental strategies to improve regeneration or functional recovery and rehabilitation. Experimental and clinical research papers adopting fresh conceptual approaches are encouraged. The overriding criteria for publication are novelty, significant experimental or clinical relevance and interest to a multidisciplinary audience. Experiments on un-anesthetized animals should conform with the standards for the use of laboratory animals as established by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, US National Academy of Sciences. Experiments in which paralytic agents are used must be justified. Patient identity should be concealed. All manuscripts are sent out for blind peer review to editorial board members or outside reviewers. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience is a member of Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.