Scientific basis and active ingredients of current therapeutic interventions for stroke rehabilitation
Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, ISSN: 1878-3627, Vol: 40, Issue: 2, Page: 97-107
2022
- 4Citations
- 10Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- CrossRef2
- Captures10
- Readers10
- 10
Article Description
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.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85131856680&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/rnn-211243; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35527584; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3233/RNN-211243; https://dx.doi.org/10.3233/rnn-211243; https://content.iospress.com:443/articles/restorative-neurology-and-neuroscience/rnn211243
SAGE Publications
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know