An open-label randomized pragmatic non-inferiority pilot trial comparing the effectiveness of Curare 30CH against individualized homeopathic medicines in post-stroke hemiparesis

A comprehensive review for artificial intelligence on neuroimaging in rehabilitation of ischemic stroke

Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, with ischemic stroke accounting for a significant proportion of morbidity and mortality among stroke patients. Ischemic stroke often causes disability and cognitive impairment in patients, which seriously affects the quality of life of patients. Therefore, how to predict the recovery of patients can provide support for clinical intervention in advance and improve the enthusiasm of patients for rehabilitation treatment. With the popularization of imaging technology, the diagnosis and treatment of ischemic stroke patients are often accompanied by a large number of imaging data. Through machine learning and Deep Learning, information from imaging data can be used more effectively. In this review, we discuss recent advances in neuroimaging, machine learning, and Deep Learning in the rehabilitation of ischemic stroke.

Efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines in treatment of post-stroke hemiparesis: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Hemiparesis is a serious motor impairment following stroke and affecting around 65% of stroke patients. This trial attempts to study the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) in comparison with identical-looking placebos in treatment of post-stroke hemiparesis (PSH) in the mutual context of standard physiotherapy (SP).

METHODS

A 3-months, open-label, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (n = 60) was conducted at the Organon of Medicine outpatient departments of National Institute of Homoeopathy, West Bengal, India. Patients were randomized to receive IHMs plus SP (n = 30) or identical-looking placebos plus SP (n = 30). Primary outcome measure was Medical Research Council (MRC) muscle strength grading scale; secondary outcomes were Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) version 2.0, Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), and stroke recovery 0-100 visual analogue scale (VAS) scores; all measured at baseline and 3 months after intervention. Group differences and effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated on intention-to-treat sample.

RESULTS

Although overall improvements were higher in the IHMs group than placebos with small to medium effect sizes, the group differences were statistically non-significant (all P>0.05, unpaired t-tests). Improvement in SIS physical problems was significantly higher in IHMs than placebos (mean difference 2.0, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 3.8, P = 0.025, unpaired t-test). Causticum, Lachesis mutus, and Nux vomica were the most frequently prescribed medicines. No harms, unintended effects, homeopathic aggravations or any serious adverse events were reported from either group.

CONCLUSION

There was a small, but non-significant direction of effect favoring homeopathy against placebos in treatment of post-stroke hemiparesis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CTRI/2018/10/016196; UTN: U1111-1221-7664.

Characterization of muscle strength using the strength domain of the stroke impact scale: An integrative review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Muscle weakness is among the most common and obvious impairments in older adults and individuals with neurologic disorders. Although impairments in muscle strength are typically characterized using performance measures, the impairments have also been described using patient or observer-report. The objective of this review was to summarize literature describing use of a patient-report instrument, the Strength Domain (SD) of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), to grade strength impairments. METHODS: Peer-reviewed literature reporting SD scores for the SIS was identified using computerized searches of the CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus databases followed by hand searches. Potentially relevant articles were then mined for data on the participants tested, the SIS version used, scores documented, and clinimetric properties reported. RESULTS: Sixty-five articles were judged appropriate based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles involved more than 7000 residents of 22 countries. All articles focused on individuals with stroke (usually chronic), although one also included community-dwelling adults without stroke. The SIS version used was frequently unreported, but 3.0 was version most often specified. For articles reporting SD scale scores the mean ranged from 19.7 to 85.5. Construct (known groups, convergent, and discriminant) validity of the SD was supported by the literature as was its internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Responsiveness of the SD was evinced by numerous studies showing increases in SD scores with time or accompanying effective interventions. However, only one study indicated responsiveness using an anchor-based statistic. CONCLUSIONS: The SD of the SIS is a well-established and mostly clinimetrically sound patient-report measure of paretic limb strength among individuals with stroke. Its use with individuals with weakness accompanying aging or diagnoses other than stroke remains to be substantiated.

Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Nursing versus Usual Therapist-Led Treatment in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial

Purpose

To determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation nursing program interventions in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Patients and Methods

An assessment-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital in China. Eligible patients were stratified according to their weighted corticospinal tract lesion load and then randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 121) or a control group (n = 103). The experimental group received rehabilitation nursing from well-trained, qualified nurses (30 minutes per session, two sessions per day for seven consecutive days). The control group received therapist-led rehabilitation with the same timing and frequency. Comparative analysis of the primary outcomes was performed to determine non-inferiority with a predetermined non-inferiority margin. The primary outcomes were the Motor Assessment Scale, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, and the Action Research Arm Test assessed at baseline and after seven days of treatment. The secondary outcomes were the modified Barthel Index, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and the modified Rankin Scale, evaluated before and after the intervention and at 4 and 12 weeks of follow-up.

Results

Two hundred participants completed the trial. In both groups, all outcomes improved significantly after seven days and at follow-ups. The rehabilitation nursing program was non-inferior to therapist-led treatment with lower 95% confidence limits beyond the margins for primary outcomes (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Both treatments had comparable effects; however, no definite conclusion could be drawn. Adequately powered studies are required.