Search

Background: The heterogeneity in outcome measures of post stroke rehabilitation trials suggests the need for consensus approach in stroke recovery measurement. To reach this aim, it is important to understand the past and current use of outcome measures in randomized control trials (RCTs) of stroke rehabilitation., Objective: To systematically review RCTs of post stroke UE rehabilitation interventions to understand the use of UE outcome measures in research and their changes over time., Methods: CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from 1960 to 1 April 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (1) were RCTs or crossovers published in English (2) ≥50% of participants were affected by stroke, 3) included adults ≥ 18 years old, and (4) applied an intervention to the hemiparetic UE as the primary objective of the study., Results: 1,276 RCTs met inclusion criteria, and 112 different outcome measures were identified. Outcome measures were classified according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Outcome measures most frequently assessed body function and structure ( n  = 1,692), followed by activities ( n  = 1,572) and participation ( n  = 162). The most used outcome measures were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment ( n  = 619), the modified Ashworth Scale ( n  = 255), Action Research Arm Test ( n  = 211), Wolf Motor Function Test ( n  = 184), and Box and Block Test ( n  = 178)., Conclusions: Understanding the breadth of outcome measures that have been used over time emphasizes the need for proposed standardization of outcome measures but also the need to adjust and expand consensus recommendations based on past and ongoing research trends.

Objective: It is often challenging for providers to remain up to date with best practices gleaned from clinical research. Consequently, patients may receive inappropriate, suboptimal, and costly care. Living clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) maintain the methodological rigor of traditional CPGs but are continuously updated in response to new research findings, changes in clinical practice, and emerging evidence. The objective of this initiative was to discuss the lessons learned from the transformation of the Canadian Clinical Practice Guideline for the Rehabilitation of Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury (CAN-TBI) from a traditional guideline update model to a living guideline model., Design: The CAN-TBI Guideline provides evidence-based rehabilitative care recommendations for individuals who have sustained a TBI. The Guideline is divided into 2 sections: Section I, which provides guidance on the components of the optimal TBI rehabilitation system, and Section II, which focuses on the assessment and rehabilitation of brain injury sequelae. A comprehensive outline of the living guideline process is presented., Results: The CAN-TBI living guideline process has yielded 351 recommendations organized within 21 domains. Currently, 30 recommendations are supported by level A evidence, 81 recommendations are supported by level B evidence, and 240 consensus-based recommendations (level C evidence) comprise 68% of the CAN-TBI Guideline., Conclusion: Given the increasing volume of research published on moderate-to-severe TBI rehabilitation, the CAN-TBI living guideline process allows for real-time integration of emerging evidence in response to the fastest-growing topics, ensuring that practitioners have access to the most current and relevant recommendations., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The project described in this manuscript was funded through Neurotrauma grant number 719 from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care of Ontario, Canada (Lead: Dr Mark Bayley). The authors declare that no competing financial interests exist. The authors further declare that the funders did not participate in the organization of the project, the expert panel process, evidence synthesis, or formulation of the recommendations. The views expressed in the publication are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Province of Ontario., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)