The first Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable established a game changing set of new standards for stroke recovery research. Common language and definitions were required to develop an agreed framework spanning the four working groups: translation of basic science, biomarkers of stroke recovery, measurement in clinical trials and intervention development and reporting. This paper outlines the working definitions established by our group and an agreed vision for accelerating progress in stroke recovery research.
BernhardtJBorschmannKBoydLet al. Moving rehabilitation research forward: developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research. Int J Stroke2016; 11: 454–458.
2.
CorbettDCarmichaelSTMurphySTet al. Enhancing the alignment of the preclinical and clinical stroke recovery research pipeline: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) translational working group. Int J Stroke2017. DOI: 10.1177/1747493017711814.
3.
BoydLAHaywardKSWardNSet al. Biomarkers of stroke recovery: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR). Int J Stroke (under review).
4.
KwakkelGLanninNBorschmannKet al. Standardised measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR). Int J Stroke2017. DOI: 10.1177/1747493017711813.
5.
WalkerMFHoffmannTCBradyMCet al. Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR). Int J Stroke2017. DOI: 10.1177/1747493017711815.
6.
KrakauerJWCarmichaelSTCorbettDWittenbergGF. Getting neurorehabilitation right: what can be learned from animal models?Neurorehab Neural Repair2012; 26: 923–931.
7.
KwakkelGVeerbeekJMvan WegenWolfSL. Constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke. Lancet Neurol2015; 14: 224–234.
8.
British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine. Rehabilitation following acquired brain injury: National Clinical Guidelines. London, UK: Physicians RCo, 2003.
9.
World Health Organisation. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2001.
10.
LevinMFKleimJAWolfSL. What do motor ‘recovery’ and ‘compensation’ mean in patients following stroke?Neurorehab Neural Repair2009; 23: 313–319.
11.
ZeilerSRKrakauerJW. The interaction between training and plasticity in the post-stroke brain. Curr Opin Neurol2013; 26: 609–616.
12.
DuffMChenYChengLet al. Adaptive mixed reality rehabilitation improves quality of reaching movements more than traditional reaching therapy following stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair2013; 27: 3016–315.
13.
HopeTMSeghierMLLeffAPPriceCJ. Predicting outcome and recovery after stroke with lesions extracted from MRI images. Neuroimage Clin2013; 2: 424–433.
14.
CarmichaelST. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of neural repair after stroke: making waves. Ann Neurol2006; 59: 735–742.
15.
CramerSCKoroshetzWJFinklesteinSP. The case for modality-specific outcome measures in clinical trials of stroke recovery-promoting agents. Stroke2007; 38: 1393–1395.
16.
NakayamaHJorgensenHRaaschouHOlsenT. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1994; 75: 394–398.
17.
ByblowWDStinearCMBarberPAPetoeMAAckerleySJ. Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol2015; 78: 848–859.
18.
DuncanPWGoldsteinLBMatcharDDivineGWFeussnerJ. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke:outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke1992; 23: 1084–1089.
19.
PrabhakaranSZarahnERileyCet al. Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair2008; 22: 64–71.
20.
WintersCvan WegenEEHDaffertshoferAKwakkelG. Generalizability of the proportional recovery model for the upper extremity after an ischemic stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair2015; 29: 614–622.
21.
WintersCvan WegenEEHDaffershoferAKwakkelG. Generalizability of the maximum proportional recovery rule to visuospatial neglect early poststroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair2017; 31: 334–342.
22.
LendremWLincolnNB. Spontaneous recovery of language in patients with aphasia between 4 and 34 weeks after stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr1985; 48: 743–748.
23.
PedersenPMJorgensenHSNakayamaHRaaschouHOOlsenTS. Aphasia in acute stroke: incidence, determinants, and recovery. Ann Neurol1995; 38: 659–666.
24.
TwitchellTE. The restoration of motor function following hemiplegia in man. Brain1951; 74: 443–480.
25.
LazarRMMinzerBAntonielloDFestaJRKrakauerJWMarshallRS. Improvement in aphasia scores after stroke is well predicted by initial severity. Stroke2010; 41: 1485–1488.
26.
BurkeECramerSC. Biomarkers and predictors of restorative therapy effects after stroke. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep2013; 13: 329.
DobkinBHCarmichaelST. The specific requirements of neural repair trials for stroke. Neurorehab Neural Repair2016; 30: 470–478.
29.
BernhardtJEnglishCJohnsonLCummingTB. Early mobilization after stroke: early adoption but limited evidence. Stroke2015; 46: 1141–1146.
30.
BiernaskieJChernenkoGCorbettD. Efficacy of rehabilitative experience declines with time after focal ischemic brain injury. J Neurosci2004; 24: 1245–1254.
31.
CaliaperumalJColbourneF. Rehabilitation improves behavioral recovery and lessens cell death without affecting iron, ferritin, transferrin, or inflammation after intracerebral hemorrhage in rats. Neurorehab Neural Repair2014; 28: 395–404.
32.
ClarksonAOvermanJZhongSMuellerRLynchGCarmichaelST. AMPA receptor-induced local brain-derived neurotrophic factor signaling mediates motor recovery after stroke. J Neurosci2011; 31: 3766–3775.
33.
CarmichaelST. The 3 Rs of stroke biology: radial, relayed, and regenerative. Neurotherapeutics2016; 13: 348–359.
34.
KwakkelGKollenBJLindemanE. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci2004; 22: 281–299.
35.
HankeyGJ. Stroke. Lancet2016; 389: 641–654.
36.
XiGKeepRFHoffJT. Mechanisms of brain injury after intracerebral haemorrhage. Lancet Neurol2006; 5: 53–63.
37.
BernhardtJGodeckeEJohnsonLLanghorneP. Early rehabilitation after stroke. Curr Opin Neurol2017; 30: 48–54.
38.
StinearCAckerleySByblowW. Rehabilitation is initiated early after stroke, but most motor rehabilitation trials are not: a systematic review. Stroke2013; 44: 2039–2045.
39.
BirkenmeierRLPragerEMLangCE. Translating animal doses of task-specific training to people with chronic stroke in 1-hour therapy sessions: a proof-of-concept study. Neurorehab Neural Repair2010; 24: 620–635.
40.
DromerickAWLangCEBirkenmeierRLet al. Very early constraint-induced movement during stroke rehabilitation (VECTORS): a single-center RCT. Neurology2009; 73: 195–201.
41.
KwakkelGWintersCvan WegenEEHet al. Effects of unilateral upper limb training in two distinct prognostic groups early after stroke: the EXPLICIT-stroke randomized clinical trial. Neurorehab Neural Repair2016; 30: 804–816.
42.
WintersCHeymansMWvan WegenEEHKwakkelG. How to design clinical rehabilitation trials for the upper paretic limb early post stroke?Trials2016; 17: 468.
43.
StinearCMBarberPAPetoeMAnwarSByblowWD. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain2012; 135: 2527–2535.
44.
CortesJCGoldsmithJHarranMDet al. A short and distinct time window for recovery of arm motor control early after stroke revealed with a global measure of trajectory kinematics. Neurorehab Neural Repair. Published online March16, 2017: 1545968317697034.
45.
WardNS. Restoring brain function after stroke – bridging the gap between animals and humans. Nat Rev Neurol2017; 13: 244–255.
46.
CramerSCWolfSLAdamsHPJr.et al. Stroke recovery and rehabilitation research: issues, opportunities, and the national institutes of health StrokeNet. Stroke2017; 48: 813–819.
47.
SchmidtRALeeTM. Motor control and learning: a behavioural emphasis. 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
48.
HaithAMKrakauerJW. Theoretical models of motor control and motor learning. In: GollhoferITaubeWNielsenJB (eds) Handbook of motor control and motor learning. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2012, pp. 7–28.
49.
ShmuelofLKrakauerJWMazzoniPJ. How is a motor skill learned? Change and invariance at the levels of task success and trajectory control. J Neurophysiol2012; 108: 578–594.
50.
HubbardIJParsonsMWNeilsonCCareyLM. Task-specific training: evidence for and translation into clinical practice. OccupTher Int2009; 16: 175–189.
51.
FrenchBThomasLHLeathleyMJet al. Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2007; 4: CD006073.
52.
CarrJShepherdR. Movement science: foundations for physical therapy in rehabilitation. Maryland, USA: Aspen Publishers, 2000.
53.
BayonaNABitenskyJSalterKTeasellRW. The role of task-specific training in rehabilitation therapies. Topics Stroke Rehab2005; 12: 58–65.
54.
FasottiLvan KesselM. Novel insights in the rehabilitation of neglect. Front Hum Neurosci2013; 7: 780.
55.
RichardsLHansonCWellbornMSethiA. Driving motor recovery after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil2008; 15: 397–411.
56.
DobkinBHDorschA. New evidence for therapies in stroke rehabilitation. Curr Atheroscler Rep2013; 15: 331.
