Book contents
- Caplan’s Stroke
- Caplan’s Stroke
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- Part I General principles
- Part II Stroke syndromes
- Part III Prevention, complications, and recovery–rehabilitation
- Chapter 18 Stroke prevention
- Chapter 19 Complications in stroke patients
- Chapter 20 Recovery, rehabilitation, and repair
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Chapter 20 - Recovery, rehabilitation, and repair
from Part III - Prevention, complications, and recovery–rehabilitation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2016
Edited by
Book contents
- Caplan’s Stroke
- Caplan’s Stroke
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- Part I General principles
- Part II Stroke syndromes
- Part III Prevention, complications, and recovery–rehabilitation
- Chapter 18 Stroke prevention
- Chapter 19 Complications in stroke patients
- Chapter 20 Recovery, rehabilitation, and repair
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Caplan's StrokeA Clinical Approach, pp. 608 - 626Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Rathore, S, Hinn, A, Cooper, L, Tyroler, H, Rosamond, W. Characterization of incident stroke signs and symptoms: Findings from the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Stroke. 2002;33:2718–2721CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gresham, G, Duncan, P, Stason, W, et al. Post-stroke Rehabilitation. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1995Google Scholar
World Health Organization. World Health Report 2003. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003Google Scholar
Luria, A. Restoration of Function After Brain Injury. New York: Macmillan Company; 1963Google Scholar
Caplan, LR, Hier, DB. Recovery from right hemisphere stroke. In: Courbier, R, ed. Basis for a Classification of Cerebral Arterial Diseases. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica; 1985:163–171Google Scholar
Cramer, S. Repairing the human brain after stroke. I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery. Ann Neurol. 2008;63:272–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hier, D, Mondlock, J, Caplan, LR. Recovery of behavioral abnormalities after right hemisphere stroke. Neurology. 1983;33:345–350CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fries, W, Danek, A, Scheidtmann, K, Hamburger, C. Motor recovery following capsular stroke. Role of descending pathways from multiple motor areas. Brain. 1993;116:369–382Google Scholar
Binkofski, F, Seitz, R, Arnold, S, Classen, J, Benecke, R, Freund, H. Thalamic metbolism and corticospinal tract integrity determine motor recovery in stroke. Ann Neurol. 1996;39:460–470CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shelton, F, Reding, M. Effect of lesion location on upper limb motor recovery after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32:107–112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crafton, K, Mark, A, Cramer, S. Improved understanding of cortical injury by incorporating measures of functional anatomy. Brain. 2003;126:1650–1659CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillis, A, Barker, P, Wityk, R, et al. Variability in subcortical aphasia is due to variable sites of cortical hypoperfusion. Brain Lang. 2004;89:524–530CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindenberg, R, Renga, V, Zhu, LL, Betzler, F, Alsop, D, Schlaug, G. Structural integrity of corticospinal motor fibers predicts motor impairment in chronic stroke. Neurology. 2010;74:280–287Google Scholar
Riley, JD, Le, V, Der-Yeghiaian, L, et al. Anatomy of stroke injury predicts gains from therapy. Stroke. 2011;42:421–426CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ween, JE, Alexander, MP, D’Esposito, M, Roberts, M. Factors predictive of stroke outcome in a rehabilitation setting. Neurology. 1996;47:388–392Google Scholar
Chang, E, Chang, E, Cragg, S, Cramer, S. Predictors of gains during inpatient rehabilitation in patients with stroke: A review. Crit Rev Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;25:55–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, NE, Wood-Dauphinee, S, Cote, R, Durcan, L, Carlton, J. Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1035–1042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ottenbacher, KJ, Karmarkar, A, Graham, JE, et al. Thirty-day hospital readmission following discharge from postacute rehabilitation in fee-for-service medicare patients. JAMA. 2014;311:604–614Google Scholar
Baker, CM, Miller, I, Sitterding, M, Hajewski, CJ. Acute stroke patients comparing outcomes with and without case management. Nurs Case Manag. 1998;3:196–203Google Scholar
Nakayama, H, Jorgensen, H, Raaschou, H, Olsen, T. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:394–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twitchell, T. Restoration of motor function following hemiplegia in man. Brain. 1951;74:443–480Google Scholar
Pedersen, P, Jorgensen, H, Nakayama, H, Raaschou, H, Olsen, T. Aphasia in acute stroke: Incidence, determinants, and recovery. Ann Neurol. 1995;38:659–666Google Scholar
Kertesz, A, McCabe, P. Recovery patterns and prognosis in aphasia. Brain. 1977;100 Pt 1:1–18CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desmond, D, Moroney, J, Sano, M, Stern, Y. Recovery of cognitive function after stroke. Stroke. 1996;27:1798–1803Google Scholar
Wade, D, Parker, V, Langton Hewer, R. Memory disturbance after stroke: Frequency and associated losses. Int Rehabil Med. 1986;8:60–64Google ScholarPubMed
Sunderland, A, Tinson, D, Bradley, L. Differences in recovery from constructional apraxia after right and left hemisphere stroke? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1994;16:916–920Google Scholar
Cassidy, T, Lewis, S, Gray, C. Recovery from visuospatial neglect in stroke patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1998;64:555–557Google Scholar
Levine, D, Warach, J, Benowitz, L, Calvanio, R. Left spatial neglect: Effects of lesion size and premorbid brain atrophy on severity and recovery following right cerebral infarction. Neurology. 1986;36:362–366Google Scholar
Marshall, J, Cross, A, Jackson, D, Green, A, Baker, H, Ridley, R. Clomethiazole protects against hemineglect in a primate model of stroke. Brain Res Bull. 2000;52:21–29Google Scholar
Markgraf, C, Green, E, Hurwitz, B, et al. Sensorimotor and cognitive consequences of middle cerebral artery occlusion in rats. Brain Res. 1992;575:238–246Google Scholar
Nys, GM, Van Zandvoort, MJ, De Kort, PL, et al. Domain-specific cognitive recovery after first-ever stroke: A follow-up study of 111 cases. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2005;11:795–806Google Scholar
Jorgensen, H, Nakayama, H, Raaschou, H, Vive-Larsen, J, Stoier, M, Olsen, T. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part I: Outcome. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:399–405Google Scholar
Mohr, J, Pessin, M, Finkelstein, S, Funkenstein, H, Duncan, G, Davis, K. Broca aphasia: Pathologic and clinical. Neurology. 1978;28:311–324Google Scholar
Cramer, S, Nelles, G, Benson, R, et al. A functional MRI study of subjects recovered from hemiparetic stroke. Stroke. 1997;28:2518–2527Google Scholar
Carmichael, ST. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of neural repair after stroke: Making waves. Ann Neurol. 2006;59:735–742Google Scholar
Dancause, N, Barbay, S, Frost, SB, et al. Extensive cortical rewiring after brain injury. J Neurosci. 2005;25:10167–10179Google Scholar
Cramer, S, Chopp, M. Recovery recapitulates ontogeny. Trends Neurosci. 2000;23:265–271CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hermann, DM, Chopp, M. Promoting brain remodelling and plasticity for stroke recovery: Therapeutic promise and potential pitfalls of clinical translation. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11:369–380Google Scholar
Overman, JJ, Carmichael, ST. Plasticity in the injured brain: More than molecules matter. Neuroscientist. 2014;20:15–28Google Scholar
Nudo, RJ. Neural bases of recovery after brain injury. J Commun Disord. 2011;44:515–520Google Scholar
Weiller, C, Chollet, F, Frackowaik, RSJ. Physiological aspects of recovery from stroke. In Ginsberg, M, Bogousslavsky, J, eds. Cerebrovascular disease: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; 1998:2057–2067Google Scholar
Binkofski, F, Seitz, RJ, Hacklander, T, Pawelec, D, Mau, J, Freund, HJ. Recovery of motor functions following hemiparetic stroke: A clinical and magnetic resonance-morphometric study. Cerebrovas Dis. 2001;11:273–281Google Scholar
Feydy, A, Carlier, R, Roby-Brami, A, et al. Longitudinal study of motor recovery after stroke: Recruitment and focusing of brain activation. Stroke. 2002;33:1610–1617Google Scholar
Ward, NS, Cohen, LG. Mechanisms underlying recovery of motor function after stroke. Arch Neurol. 2004;61:1844–1848Google Scholar
Han, BS, Kim, SH, Kim, OL, Cho, SH, Kim, YH, Jang, SH. Recovery of corticospinal tract with diffuse axonal injury: A diffusion tensor image study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2007;22:151–155Google Scholar
Cramer, S. Functional imaging in stroke recovery. Stroke. 2004;35:2695–2698CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, E, Cramer, SC. Biomarkers and predictors of restorative therapy effects after stroke. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2013;13:329Google Scholar
Stinear, C. Prediction of recovery of motor function after stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:1228–1232Google Scholar
Stinear, CM, Ward, NS. How useful is imaging in predicting outcomes in stroke rehabilitation? Int J Stroke. 2013;8:33–37CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharma, N, Baron, JC, Rowe, JB. Motor imagery after stroke: Relating outcome to motor network connectivity. Ann Neurol. 2009;66:604–616Google Scholar
Grefkes, C, Nowak, DA, Eickhoff, SB, et al. Cortical connectivity after subcortical stroke assessed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Neurol. 2008;63:236–246CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, AR, Astafiev, SV, Lang, CE, et al. Resting interhemispheric functional magnetic resonance imaging connectivity predicts performance after stroke. Ann Neurol. 2010;67:365–375Google Scholar
Grefkes, C, Fink, GR. Reorganization of cerebral networks after stroke: New insights from neuroimaging with connectivity approaches. Brain. 2011;135:1264–1276Google Scholar
Burke Quinlan, E, Dodakian, L, See, J, et al. Neural function, injury, and stroke subtype predict treatment gains after stroke. Ann Neurol. 2014;77:132–145Google Scholar
von Monakow, C. Diaschisis, 1914. In Pribram, K, ed. Brain and Behavior 1. Mood, States and Mind. Baltimore: Penguin Books; 1969:26–34Google Scholar
Weiller, C, Ramsay, S, Wise, R, Friston, K, Frackowiak, R. Individual patterns of functional reorganization in the human cerebral cortex after capsular infarction. Ann Neurol. 1993;33:181–189Google Scholar
Cramer, S, Moore, C, Finklestein, S, Rosen, B. A pilot study of somatotopic mapping after cortical infarct. Stroke. 2000;31:668–671Google Scholar
Cramer, S, Crafton, K. Changes in lateralization and somatotopic organization after cortical stroke. Stroke. 2004;35:240Google Scholar
Murase, N, Duque, J, Mazzocchio, R, Cohen, L. Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke. Ann Neurol. 2004;55:400–409Google Scholar
Netz, J, Lammers, T, Homberg, V. Reorganization of motor output in the non-affected hemisphere after stroke. Brain. 1997;120:1579–1586Google Scholar
Turton, A, Wroe, S, Trepte, N, Fraser, C, Lemon, R. Contralateral and ipsilateral EMG responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation during recovery of arm and hand function after stroke. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996;101:316–328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heiss, WD, Thiel, A. A proposed regional hierarchy in recovery of post-stroke aphasia. Brain Lang. 2006;98:118–123Google Scholar
Teasell, R, Meyer, MJ, McClure, A, et al. Stroke rehabilitation: An international perspective. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16:44–56Google Scholar
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008.Google Scholar
Miller, EL, Murray, L, Richards, L, et al. Comprehensive overview of nursing and interdisciplinary rehabilitation care of the stroke patient: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2010;41:2402–2448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, N, Teasell, R, Bhogal, S, Speechley, M, Hussein, N. The Efficacy of Stroke Rehabilitation. Available from http://www.ebrsr.com/evidence-review/5-efficacy-stroke-rehabilitation. Last updated November, 2013Google Scholar
Dobkin, BH. Clinical practice. Rehabilitation after stroke. New Engl J Med. 2005;352:1677–1684Google Scholar
Wood-Dauphinee, S, Shapiro, S, Bass, E, et al. A randomized trial of team care following stroke. Stroke. 1984;15:864–872Google Scholar
Strand, T, Asplund, K, Eriksson, S, Hagg, E, Lithner, F, Wester, PO. A non-intensive stroke unit reduces functional disability and the need for long-term hospitalization. Stroke. 1985;16:29–34Google Scholar
Indredavik, B, Bakke, F, Solberg, R, Rokseth, R, Haaheim, LL, Holme, I. Benefit of a stroke unit: A randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 1991;22:1026–1031Google Scholar
Kalra, L, Dale, P, Crome, P. Improving stroke rehabilitation. A controlled study. Stroke. 1993;24:1462–1467Google Scholar
Ottenbacher, KJ, Jannell, S. The results of clinical trials in stroke rehabilitation research. Arch Neurol. 1993;50:37–44Google Scholar
Kaste, M, Palomaki, H, Sarna, S. Where and how should elderly stroke patients be treated? A randomized trial. Stroke. 1995;26:249–253Google Scholar
Indredavik, B, Slordahl, SA, Bakke, F, Rokseth, R, Haheim, LL. Stroke unit treatment. Long-term effects. Stroke. 1997;28:1861–1866Google Scholar
Stroke Unit Trialists Collaboration. Collaborative systematic review of the randomized trials of organized in-patient (stroke unit) care after stroke. BMJ. 1997;314:1151–1159Google Scholar
Stroke Unit Trialists Collaboration. How do stroke units improve patient outcomes? A collaborative systematic review of the randomized trials. Stroke. 1997;28:2139–2144Google Scholar
Colborne, GR, Olney, SJ, Griffin, MP. Feedback of ankle joint angle and soleus electromyography in the rehabilitation of hemiplegic gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:1100–1106Google Scholar
da Cunha-IT, Jr, Lim, PA, Qureshy, H, Henson, H, Monga, T, Protas, EJ. Gait outcomes after acute stroke rehabilitation with supported treadmill ambulation training: A randomized controlled pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1258–1265CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maple, FW, Tong, RKY, Li, LSW. A pilot study of randomized clinical controlled trial of gait training in subacute stroke patients with partial body-weight support electromechanical gait trainer and functional electrical stimulation. Stroke. 2008;39:154–160Google Scholar
Shewan, CM, Kertesz, A. Effects of speech and language treatment on recovery from aphasia. Brain Lang. 1984;23:272–299Google Scholar
Vines, BW, Norton, AC, Schlaug, G. Applying transcranial direct current stimulation in combination with melodic intonation therapy facilitates language recovery for Broca’s aphasic patients. Stroke. 2007;38:519Google Scholar
Halligan, P, Marshall, JC. Spatial neglect. Position papers on theory and practise. Neuropsych Rehabil. 1994;4:103–230Google Scholar
Johansson, K, Lindgren, I, Widner, H, Wiklund, I, Johansson, BB. Can sensory stimulation improve the functional outcome in stroke patients? Neurology. 1993;43:2189–2192Google Scholar
Ottenbacher, KJ, Smith, PM, Illig, SB, Linn, RT, Ostir, GV, Granger, CV. Trends in length of stay, living setting, functional outcome, and mortality following medical rehabilitation. JAMA. 2004;292:1687–1695Google Scholar
McKenna, JE, Whishaw, IQ. Complete compensation in skilled reaching success with associated impairments in limb synergies, after dorsal column lesion in the rat. J Neurosci. 1999;19:1885–1894Google Scholar
Nakayama, H, Jorgensen, HS, Raaschou, HO, Olsen, TS. Compensation in recovery of upper extremity function after stroke: The Copenhagen stroke study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75:852–857Google Scholar
Cirstea, MC, Levin, MF. Improvement of arm movement patterns and endpoint control depends on type of feedback during practice in stroke survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:398–411Google Scholar
Friel, K, Nudo, R. Recovery of motor function after focal cortical injury in primates: Compensatory movement patterns used during rehabilitative training. Somatosens Mot Res. 1998;15:173–189Google Scholar
Levin, MF, Kleim, JA, Wolf, SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:313–319Google Scholar
Pollock, A, Baer, G, Campbell, P, et al. Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;4:CD001920Google Scholar
Miyai, I, Reding, MJ. Stroke recovery and rehabilitation. In Ginsberg, M, Bogousslavsky, J, eds. Cerebrovascular Disease: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; 1998:2043–2056Google Scholar
Bates, B, Choi, JY, Duncan, PW, et al. Veterans affairs/Department of Defense clinical practice guideline for the management of adult stroke rehabilitation care: Executive summary. Stroke. 2005;36:2049–2056Google Scholar
Duncan, PW, Zorowitz, R, Bates, B, et al. Management of adult stroke rehabilitation care: A clinical practice guideline. Stroke. 2005;36:e100–143Google Scholar
Cramer, SC. Repairing the human brain after stroke. II. Restorative therapies. Ann Neurol. 2008;63:549–560Google Scholar
Langhorne, P, Bernhardt, J, Kwakkel, G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377:1693–1702Google Scholar
Dobkin, BH. Training and exercise to drive poststroke recovery. Nature Clin Pract. 2008;4:76–85Google Scholar
Alexander, MP. Stroke rehabilitation outcome. A potential use of predictive variables to establish levels of care. Stroke. 1994;25:128–134Google Scholar
Caplan, LR. Neurologic management plan. In Ozer, MN, Materson, RS, Caplan, LR, eds. Management of Persons with Stroke. St Louis, MI: Mosby; 1994:61–113.Google Scholar
Billinger, SA, Arena, R, Bernhardt, J, et al. Physical activity and exercise recommendations for stroke survivors: A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45:2532–2553Google Scholar
Kernan, WN, Ovbiagele, B, Black, HR, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: A guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45:2160–2236Google Scholar
Taub, NA, Wolfe, CD, Richardson, E, Burney, PG. Predicting the disability of first-time stroke sufferers at 1 year. 12-month follow-up of a population-based cohort in Southeast England. Stroke. 1994;25:352–357Google Scholar
Feigenson, JS, McDowell, FH, Meese, P, McCarthy, ML, Greenberg, SD. Factors influencing outcome and length of stay in a stroke rehabilitation unit. Part 1. Analysis of 248 unscreened patients – medical and functional prognostic indicators. Stroke. 1977;8:651–656Google Scholar
Feigenson, JS, McCarthy, ML, Greenberg, SD, Feigenson, WD. Factors influencing outcome and length of stay in a stroke rehabilitation unit. Part 2. Comparison of 318 screened and 248 unscreened patients. Stroke. 1977;8:657–662Google Scholar
Feigenson, JS, McCarthy, ML, Meese, PD, et al. Stroke rehabilitation I. Factors predicting outcome and length of stay – an overview. N Y State J Med. 1977;77:1426–1430Google Scholar
Nicholas, ML, Helm-Estabrooks, N, Ward-Lonergan, J, Morgan, AR. Evolution of severe aphasia in the first two years post onset. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:830–836Google Scholar
Kelly, PJ, Furie, KL, Shafqat, S, Rallis, N, Chang, Y, Stein, J. Functional recovery following rehabilitation after hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:968–972Google Scholar
Feigenson, JS. Neurological rehabilitation. In Baker, AB, ed. Clinical Neurology. New York: Harper and Row; 1983:1–66Google Scholar
DeJong, G, Branch, LG. Predicting the stroke patient’s ability to live independently. Stroke. 1982;13:648–655Google Scholar
Hakkennes, S, Hill, KD, Brock, K, Bernhardt, J, Churilov, L. Selection for inpatient rehabilitation after severe stroke: What factors influence rehabilitation assessor decision-making? J Rehab Med. 2013;45:24–31Google Scholar
Hakkennes, SJ, Brock, K, Hill, KD. Selection for inpatient rehabilitation after acute stroke: A systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:2057–2070Google Scholar
Li, CC, Chen, YM, Tsay, SL, Hu, GC, Lin, KC. Predicting functional outcomes in patients suffering from ischaemic stroke using initial admission variables and physiological data: A comparison between tree model and multivariate regression analysis. Disabil Rehab. 2010;32:2088–2096Google Scholar
Fregni, F, Boggio, PS, Valle, AC, et al. A sham-controlled trial of a 5-day course of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the unaffected hemisphere in stroke patients. Stroke. 2006;37:2115–2122Google Scholar
Kreisel, SH, Hennerici, MG, Bazner, H. Pathophysiology of stroke rehabilitation: The natural course of clinical recovery, use-dependent plasticity and rehabilitative outcome. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;23:243–255Google Scholar
Katz, S, Ford, AB, Chinn, AB, et al. Prognosis after stroke: Part II long-term course of 159 patients. Medicine. 1966;45:236–246Google Scholar
Cramer, SC, Sur, M, Dobkin, BH, et al. Harnessing neuroplasticity for clinical applications. Brain. 2011;134:1591–1609Google Scholar
Corbett, D, Nguemeni, C, Gomez-Smith, M. How can you mend a broken brain? Neurorestorative approaches to stroke recovery. Cerebrovasc Dis 2014;38:233–239Google Scholar
Teasell, R, Foley, N, Salter, K, Bhogal, S, Jutai, J, Speechley, M. Evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation: Executive summary, 12th edition. Top Stroke Rehab. 2009;16:463–488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taub, E, Uswatte, G, Mark, VW, Morris, DM. The learned nonuse phenomenon: Implications for rehabilitation. Eura Medicophys. 2006;42:241–256Google Scholar
Wolf, SL, Winstein, CJ, Miller, JP, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke: The EXCITE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2095–2104Google Scholar
Page, SJ, Levine, P. Back from the brink: Electromyography-triggered stimulation combined with modified constraint-induced movement therapy in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:27–31Google Scholar
Meinzer, M, Elbert, T, Djundja, D, Taub, E, Rockstroh, B. Extending the constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) approach to cognitive functions: Constraint-induced aphasia therapy (CIAT) of chronic aphasia. Neuro Rehabilitation. 2007;22:311–318Google Scholar
Berthier, ML, Pulvermuller, F. Neuroscience insights improve neurorehabilitation of poststroke aphasia. Nat Rev Neurol. 2011;7:86–97Google Scholar
Dromerick, AW, Lang, CE, Birkenmeier, RL, et al. Very early constraint-induced movement during stroke rehabilitation (VECTORS): A single-center RCT. Neurology. 2009;73:195–201Google Scholar
Kwakkel, G, Wagenaar, R, Twisk, J, Lankhorst, G, Koetsier, J. Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: A randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;354:191–196Google Scholar
Galvin, R, Cusack, T, O’Grady, E, Murphy, TB, Stokes, E. Family-mediated exercise intervention (FAME): Evaluation of a novel form of exercise delivery after stroke. Stroke. 2011;42:681–686Google Scholar
Kwakkel, G, van Peppen, R, Wagenaar, RC, et al. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: A meta-analysis. Stroke. 2004;35:2529–2539Google Scholar
Outpatient Service Trialists. Rehabilitation therapy services for stroke patients living at home: Systematic review of randomised trials. Lancet. 2004;363:352–356Google Scholar
Bhogal, S, Teasell, R, Speechley, M. Intensity of aphasia therapy, impact on recovery. Stroke. 2003;34:987–993Google Scholar
Van Peppen, RP, Kwakkel, G, Wood-Dauphinee, S, Hendriks, HJ, Van der Wees, PJ, Dekker, J. The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: What’s the evidence? Clin Rehab. 2004;18:833–862CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galvin, R, Murphy, B, Cusack, T, Stokes, E. The impact of increased duration of exercise therapy on functional recovery following stroke – what is the evidence? Top Stroke Rehab. 2008;15:365–377Google Scholar
Cauraugh, JH, Naik, SK, Lodha, N, Coombes, SA, Summers, JJ. Long-term rehabilitation for chronic stroke arm movements: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehab. 2011;25:1086–1096Google Scholar
Lang, CE, Macdonald, JR, Reisman, DS, et al. Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;90:1692–1698Google Scholar
Bernhardt, J, Chan, J, Nicola, I, Collier, JM. Little therapy, little physical activity: Rehabilitation within the first 14 days of organized stroke unit care. J Rehab Med. 2007;39:43–48Google Scholar
Sarkamo, T, Tervaniemi, M, Laitinen, S, et al. Music listening enhances cognitive recovery and mood after middle cerebral artery stroke. Brain. 2008;131:866–876Google Scholar
Wade, DT, Skilbeck, CE, Hewer, RL, Wood, VA. Therapy after stroke: Amounts, determinants and effects. Int Rehabil Med. 1984;6:105–110Google Scholar
Kimberley, TJ, Samargia, S, Moore, LG, Shakya, JK, Lang, CE. Comparison of amounts and types of practice during rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury and stroke. J Rehab Res Develop. 2010;47:851–862Google Scholar
Bohannon, R, Andrews, A, Smith, M. Rehabilitation goals of patients with hemiplegia. Int J Rehab Research. 1988;11:181–183Google Scholar
Salbach, NM, Mayo, NE, Higgins, J, Ahmed, S, Finch, LE, Richards, CL. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:1204–1212Google Scholar
Perry, J, Garrett, M, Gronley, J, Mulroy, S. Classification of walking handicap in the stroke population. Stroke. 1995;26:982–989Google Scholar
Lovely, RG, Gregor, RJ, Roy, RR, Edgerton, VR. Effects of training on the recovery of full-weight-bearing stepping in the adult spinal cat. Exp Neurol. 1986;92:421–435Google Scholar
Hesse, S, Bertelt, C, Jahnke, MT, et al. Treadmill training with partial body weight support compared with physiotherapy in nonambulatory hemiparetic patients. Stroke. 1995;26:976–981Google Scholar
Visintin, M, Barbeau, H, Korner-Bitensky, N, Mayo, NE. A new approach to retrain gait in stroke patients through body weight support and treadmill stimulation. Stroke. 1998;29:1122–1128CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosak, MC, Reding, MJ. Comparison of partial body weight-supported treadmill gait training versus aggressive bracing assisted walking post stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2000;14:13–19Google Scholar
da Cunha-Filho, IT, Lim, PA, Qurey, H, et al. A comparison of regular rehabilitation and regular rehabilitation with supported treadmill ambulation training for acute stroke patients. J Rehabil Res Develop. 2001;3:37–47Google Scholar
Breen, JC, Baker, B, Thibault, K, Snyder, DE. Body weight support treadmill training improves walking in subacute and chronic severely disabled stroke patients. Stroke. 2007;38:571Google Scholar
Duncan, PW, Sullivan, KJ, Behrman, AL, et al. Body-weight-supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2026–2036Google Scholar
Reinkensmeyer, DJ. Robotic approaches to stroke recovery. In Cramer, SC, Nudo, RJ, eds. Brain Repair After Stroke. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2010:195–205Google Scholar
Volpe, BT, Huerta, PT, Zipse, JL, et al. Robotic devices as therapeutic and diagnostic tools for stroke recovery. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:1086–1090Google Scholar
Aisen, M, Krebs, H, Hogan, N, McDowell, F, Volpe, B. The effect of robot-assisted therapy and rehabilitative training on motor recovery following stroke. Arch Neurol. 1997;54:443–446Google Scholar
Volpe, B, Krebs, H, Hogan, N, Edelsteinn, L, Diels, C, Aisen, M. Robot training enhanced motor outcome in patients with stroke maintained over 3 years. Neurology. 1999;53:1874–1876Google Scholar
Volpe, BT, Krebs, HI, Hogan, N. Robot-aided sensorimotor training in stroke rehabilitation. Adv Neurol. 2003;92:429–433Google Scholar
Krebs, HI, Volpe, BT, Ferraro, M, et al. Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: From evidence-based to science-based rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2002;8:54–70Google Scholar
Takahashi, CD, Der-Yeghiaian, L, Le, V, Motiwala, RR, Cramer, SC. Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain. 2008;131:425–437Google Scholar
Modo, M, Ambrosio, F, Friedlander, RM, Badylak, SF, Wechsler, LR. Bioengineering solutions for neural repair and recovery in stroke. Curr Opin Neurol. 2013;26:626–631Google Scholar
Norouzi-Gheidari, N, Archambault, PS, Fung, J. Effects of robot-assisted therapy on stroke rehabilitation in upper limbs: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49:479–496Google Scholar
Lo, AC, Guarino, PD, Richards, LG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1772–1783Google Scholar
Brewer, BR, McDowell, SK, Worthen-Chaudhari, LC. Poststroke upper extremity rehabilitation: A review of robotic systems and clinical results. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2007;14:22–44Google Scholar
Reinkensmeyer, D, Emken, J, Cramer, S. Robotics, motor learning, and neurologic recovery. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2004;6:497–525Google Scholar
Semrau, JA, Herter, TM, Scott, SH, Dukelow, SP. Robotic identification of kinesthetic deficits after stroke. Stroke. 2013;44:3414–3421Google Scholar
Reinkensmeyer, DJ, Wolbrecht, ET, Chan, V, Chou, C, Cramer, SC, Bobrow, JE. Comparison of three-dimensional, assist-as-needed robotic arm/hand movement training provided with Pneu-WREX to conventional tabletop therapy after chronic stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91:S232–241Google Scholar
Brennan, D, Tindall, L, Theodoros, D, et al. A blueprint for telerehabilitation guidelines – October 2010. Telemed J E Health 2011;17:1–4Google Scholar
Langhorne, P, Coupar, F, Pollock, A. Motor recovery after stroke: A systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:741–754Google Scholar
Teasell, RW, Foley, NC, Salter, KL, Jutai, JW. A blueprint for transforming stroke rehabilitation care in Canada: The case for change. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:575–578Google Scholar
Steins, D, Dawes, H, Esser, P, Collett, J. Wearable accelerometry-based technology capable of assessing functional activities in neurological populations in community settings: A systematic review. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:36Google Scholar
Reinkensmeyer, DJ, Pang, CT, Nessler, JA, Painter, CC. Web-based telerehabilitation for the upper extremity after stroke. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2002;10:102–108Google Scholar
Lai, JC, Woo, J, Hui, E, Chan, WM. Telerehabilitation – a new model for community-based stroke rehabilitation. J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10:199–205Google Scholar
Lum, PS, Uswatte, G, Taub, E, Hardin, P, Mark, VW. A telerehabilitation approach to delivery of constraint-induced movement therapy. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2006;43:391–400Google Scholar
Sanford, JA, Griffiths, PC, Richardson, P, Hargraves, K, Butterfield, T, Hoenig, H. The effects of in-home rehabilitation on task self-efficacy in mobility-impaired adults: A randomized clinical trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:1641–1648Google Scholar
Carey, JR, Durfee, WK, Bhatt, E, et al. Comparison of finger tracking versus simple movement training via telerehabilitation to alter hand function and cortical reorganization after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:216–232Google Scholar
Deutsch, JE, Lewis, JA, Burdea, G. Technical and patient performance using a virtual reality-integrated telerehabilitation system: Preliminary finding. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007;15:30–35Google Scholar
Dallolio, L, Menarini, M, China, S, et al. Functional and clinical outcomes of telemedicine in patients with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:2332–2341Google Scholar
Baranowski, T, Buday, R, Thompson, DI, Baranowski, J. Playing for real: Video games and stories for health-related behavior change. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:74–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brox, E, Fernandez-Luque, L, Tøllefsen, T. Healthy gaming – video game design to promote health. Appl Clin Inform. 2011;2:128–142Google Scholar
Hansen, MM. Versatile, immersive, creative and dynamic virtual 3-D healthcare learning environments: A review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10:e26Google Scholar
Lieberman, D. Designing serious games for learning and health in informal and formal settings. In Ritterfeld, M, Vorderer, P, eds. Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects. New York: Routledge; 2009:117–130Google Scholar
Thompson, D, Baranowski, T, Buday, R, et al. Serious video games for health; how behavioral science guided the development of a serious video game. Simul Gaming. 2010;41:587–606Google Scholar
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Games for health: Connecting the worlds of video games and health, with positive results. Available at www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=29171. May 6, 2008.Google Scholar
Parker, SG for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Health games research: Advancing effectiveness of interactive games for health. Available at www.rwjf.org/content/rwjf/en/research-publications/find-rwjf-research/2011/03/advancing-the-field-of-health-games.html. September 18, 2015.Google Scholar
Kaplan, SH, Billimek, J, Sorkin, DH, Ngo-Metzger, Q, Greenfield, S. Who can respond to treatment? Identifying patient characteristics related to heterogeneity of treatment effects. Med Care. 2010;48:S9–16Google Scholar
Hersh, W, Hickam, D, Severance, S, Dana, T, Krages, K, Helfand, M. Telemedicine for the Medicare Population: Update. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 131. AHRQ publication no. 06–e007. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2009Google Scholar
Jimison, H, Gorman, P, Woods, S, et al. Barriers and Drivers of Health Information Technology Use for the Elderly, Chronically Ill, and Underserved. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 175. AHRQ publication no. 09–e004. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008Google Scholar
Clifford, GD, Clifton, D. Wireless technology in disease management and medicine. Annu Rev Med. 2012;63:479–492Google Scholar
Topol, E. The Creative Destruction of Medicine. How the Digital Revolution Will Create Better Health Care. New York: Basic Books; 2012Google Scholar
Feys, H, De Weerdt, W, Verbeke, G, et al. Early and repetitive stimulation of the arm can substantially improve the long-term outcome after stroke: A 5-year follow-up study of a randomized trial. Stroke. 2004;35:924–929Google Scholar
Stinear, CM, Barber, PA, Coxon, JP, Fleming, MK, Byblow, WD. Priming the motor system enhances the effects of upper limb therapy in chronic stroke. Brain. 2008;131:1381–1390Google Scholar
Kerkhoff, G. Modulation and rehabilitation of spatial neglect by sensory stimulation. Prog Brain Res. 2003;142:257–271Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder, 3rd ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2010Google Scholar
Plow, EB, Carey, JR, Nudo, RJ, Pascual-Leone, A. Invasive cortical stimulation to promote recovery of function after stroke: A critical appraisal. Stroke. 2009;40:1926–1931Google Scholar
Naeser, MA, Martin, PI, Nicholas, M, et al. Improved picture naming in chronic aphasia after TMS to part of right Broca’s area: An open-protocol study. Brain Lang. 2005;93:95–105Google Scholar
Liew, SL, Santarnecchi, E, Buch, ER, Cohen, LG. Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation: Local and distant effects for motor recovery. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:378CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dayan, E, Cohen, LG. Neuroplasticity subserving motor skill learning. Neuron. 2011;72:443–454Google Scholar
Rossi, S, Hallett, M, Rossini, PM, Pascual-Leone, A. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120:2008–2039Google Scholar
Fregni, F, Boggio, PS, Lima, MC, et al. A sham-controlled, phase II trial of transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of central pain in traumatic spinal cord injury. Pain. 2006;122:197–209Google Scholar
Takeuchi, N, Chuma, T, Matsuo, Y, Watanabe, I, Ikoma, K. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of contralesional primary motor cortex improves hand function after stroke. Stroke. 2005;36:2681–2686Google Scholar
Kobayashi, M, Hutchinson, S, Theoret, H, Schlaug, G, Pascual-Leone, A. Repetitive TMS of the motor cortex improves ipsilateral sequential simple finger movements. Neurology. 2004;62:91–98Google Scholar
Nowak, DA, Grefkes, C, Dafotakis, M, et al. Effects of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the contralesional primary motor cortex on movement kinematics and neural activity in subcortical stroke. Arch Neurol. 2008;65:741–747Google Scholar
Khedr, EM, Ahmed, MA, Fathy, N, Rothwell, JC. Therapeutic trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation after acute ischemic stroke. Neurology. 2005;65:466–468Google Scholar
Kim, YH, You, SH, Ko, MH, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced corticomotor excitability and associated motor skill acquisition in chronic stroke. Stroke. 2006;37:1471–1476Google Scholar
Hao, Z, Wang, D, Zeng, Y, Liu, M. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for improving function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;5:CD008862Google Scholar
Hsu, WY, Cheng, CH, Liao, KK, Lee, IH, Lin, YY. Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor functions in patients with stroke: A meta-analysis. Stroke. 2012;43:1849–1857Google Scholar
Hummel, F, Celnik, P, Giraux, P, et al. Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation on skilled motor function in chronic stroke. Brain. 2005;128:490–499Google Scholar
Webster, BR, Celnik, PA, Cohen, LG. Noninvasive brain stimulation in stroke rehabilitation. NeuroRx. 2006;3:474–481Google Scholar
Hummel, F, Cohen, LG. Improvement of motor function with noninvasive cortical stimulation in a patient with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005;19:14–19Google Scholar
Alonso-Alonso, M, Fregni, F, Pascual-Leone, A. Brain stimulation in post-stroke rehabilitation. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;24(supp 1):157–166Google Scholar
Nair, DG, Pascual-Leone, A, Schlaug, G. Transcranial direct current stimulation in combination with occupational therapy for 5 consecutive days improves motor function in chronic stroke patients. Stroke. 2007;38:518Google Scholar
Shah, PP, Szaflarski, JP, Allendorfer, J, Hamilton, RH. Induction of neuroplasticity and recovery in post-stroke aphasia by non-invasive brain stimulation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:888Google Scholar
Lindenberg, R, Renga, V, Zhu, LL, Nair, D, Schlaug, G. Bihemispheric brain stimulation facilitates motor recovery in chronic stroke patients. Neurology. 2010;75:2176–2184Google Scholar
Elsner, B, Kugler, J, Pohl, M, Mehrholz, J. Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) for improving function and activities of daily living in patients after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;11:CD009645Google Scholar
Butler, AJ, Shuster, M, O’Hara, E, Hurley, K, Middlebrooks, D, Guilkey, K. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation for upper limb motor recovery in stroke survivors. J Hand Ther. 2013;26:162–170;quiz 171Google Scholar
Davis, JN, Crisostomo, EA, Duncan, P, Propst, M, Feeney, DM. Amphetamine and physical therapy facilitate recovery of function from stroke: Correlative animal and human studies. In: Raichle, ME, Powers, WJ, eds. Cerebrovascular Diseases. New York: Raven Press; 1987:297–304Google Scholar
Goldstein, LB. Amphetamine-facilitated functional recovery after stroke. In Ginsberg, MD, Dietric, WD, eds. Cerebrovascular Diseases. New York: Raven Press; 1989:303–308Google Scholar
Sawaki, L, Cohen, LG, Classen, J, Davis, BC, Butefisch, CM. Enhancement of use-dependent plasticity by d-amphetamine. Neurology. 2002;59:1262–1264Google Scholar
Dombovy, ML. Understanding stroke recovery and rehabilitation: Current and emerging approaches. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2004;4:31–35Google Scholar
Goldstein, LB. Effects of amphetamines and small related molecules on recovery after stroke in animals and man. Neuropharmacology. 2000;39:852–859Google Scholar
Feeney, D, Gonzalez, A, Law, W. Amphetamine, haloperidol, and experience interact to affect the rate of recovery after motor cortex injury. Science. 1982;217:855–857Google Scholar
Houda, DA, Feeney, DM. Haldoperidol blocks amphetamine induced recovery of binocular depth perception after bilateral visual cortex abilities in the cat. Proc West Pharmacol Soc. 1985;28:209–211Google Scholar
Schallert, T, Hernandez, TD. GABAergic drugs and neuroplasticity after brain injury. In Goldstein, L, ed. Restorative Neurology: Advances in Pharmacotherapy of Recovery After Stroke. Armonk, NY: Futura Publishing; 1998:91–120Google Scholar
Goldstein, LB, Davis, JN. Physician prescribing patterns following hospital admission for ischemic cerebrovascular disease. Neurology. 1988;38:1806–1809Google Scholar
Goldstein, LB. Potential effects of common drugs on stroke recovery. Arch Neurol. 1998;55:454–456Google Scholar
Goldstein, LB. Common drugs may influence motor recovery after stroke. The Sygen in acute stroke study investigators. Neurology. 1995;45:865–871Google Scholar
Gladstone, DJ, Danells, CJ, Armesto, A, et al. Physiotherapy coupled with dextroamphetamine for rehabilitation after hemiparetic stroke: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Stroke. 2006;37:179–185Google Scholar
Scheidtmann, K, Fries, W, Muller, F, Koenig, E. Effect of levodopa in combination with physiotherapy on functional motor recovery after stroke: A prospective, randomised, double-blind study. Lancet. 2001;358:787–790Google Scholar
Pearson-Fuhrhop, KM, Minton, B, Acevedo, D, Shahbaba, B, Cramer, SC. Genetic variation in the human brain dopamine system influences motor learning and its modulation by l-dopa. PloS One. 2013;8:e61197Google Scholar
Robinson, RG, Jorge, RE, Moser, DJ, et al. Escitalopram and problem-solving therapy for prevention of poststroke depression: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:2391–2400Google Scholar
Mikami, K, Jorge, RE, Moser, DJ, et al. Prevention of post-stroke generalized anxiety disorder, using escitalopram or problem-solving therapy. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014;26:323–328Google Scholar
Chollet, F, Tardy, J, Albucher, JF et al. Fluoxetine for motor recovery after acute ischaemic stroke (FLAME): A randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10:123–130Google Scholar
Lindvall, O, Kokaia, Z. Stem cell research in stroke: How far from the clinic? Stroke. 2011;42:2369–2375Google Scholar
Savitz, SI, Cramer, SC, Wechsler, L. Stem cells as an emerging paradigm in Stroke 3: Enhancing the development of clinical trials. Stroke. 2014;45:634–639Google Scholar
Savitz, S, Rosenbaum, D, Dinsmore, J, Wechsler, L, Caplan, LR. Cell transplantation for stroke. Ann Neurol. 2002;52:266–275Google Scholar
Bliss, T, Guzman, R, Daadi, M, Steinberg, GK. Cell transplantation therapy for stroke. Stroke. 2007;38:817–826Google Scholar
Savitz, SI, Rosenbaum, DM. Stroke Recovery With Cellular Therapies. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2008Google Scholar
Kondziolka, D, Wechsler, L, Goldstein, S, et al. Transplantation of cultured human neuronal cells for patients with stroke. Neurology. 2000;55:565–569Google Scholar
Kondziolka, D, Steinberg, GK, Wechsler, L, et al. Neurotransplantation for patients with subcortical motor stroke: A phase 2 randomized trial. J Neurosurg. 2005;103:38–45Google Scholar
Savitz, SI, Dinsmore, J, Wu, J, Henderson, GV, Stieg, P, Caplan, LR. Neurotransplantation of fetal porcine cells in patients with basal ganglia infarcts: A preliminary safety and feasibility study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005;20:101–107Google Scholar
Chen, J, Li, Y, Wang, L, et al. Therapeutic benefit of intravenous administration of bone marrow stromal cells after cerebral ischemia in rats. Stroke. 2001;32:1005–1011Google Scholar
Chopp, M, Li, Y. Transplantation of bone marrow stromal cells for treatment of central nervous system diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2006;585:49–64Google Scholar
Tang, Y, Yasuhara, T, Hara, K, et al. Transplantation of bone marrow-derived stem cells: A promising therapy for stroke. Cell Transplant. 2007;16:159–169Google Scholar
Eckert, MA, Vu, Q, Xie, K, et al. Evidence for high translational potential of mesenchymal stromal cell therapy to improve recovery from ischemic stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2013;33:1322–1334Google Scholar
Chen, J, Sanberg, PR, Li, Y, et al. Intravenous administration of human umbilical cord blood reduces behavioral deficits after stroke in rats. Stroke. 2001;32:2682–2688Google Scholar
Newman, MB, Emerich, DF, Borlongan, CV, Sanberg, CD, Sanberg, PR. Use of human umbilical cord blood (HUCB) cells to repair the damaged brain. Curr Neurovasc Res. 2004;1:269–281Google Scholar
Vu, Q, Xie, K, Eckert, M, Zhao, W, Cramer, SC. Meta-analysis of preclinical studies of mesenchymal stromal cells for ischemic stroke. Neurology. 2014;82:1277–1286Google Scholar
Honmou, O, Houkin, K, Matsunaga, T, et al. Intravenous administration of auto serum-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells in stroke. Brain. 2011;134:1790–1807Google Scholar
Ren, JM, Finklestein, SP. Growth factor treatment of stroke. Curr Drug Targets CNS Neurol Disord. 2005;4:121–125Google Scholar
Finklestein, SP, Caday, CG, Kano, M, et al. Growth factor expression after stroke. Stroke. 1990;21:III122–124Google Scholar
Lanfranconi, S, Locatelli, F, Corti, S, et al. Growth factors in ischemic stroke. J Cell Mol Med. 2011;15:1645–1687Google Scholar
Kawamata, T, Dietrich, W, Schallert, T, et al. Intracisternal basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) enhances functional recovery and upregulates the expression of a molecular marker of neuronal sprouting following focal cerebral infarction. Proc. Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997;94:8179–8184Google Scholar
Schabitz, WR, Berger, C, Kollmar, R, et al. Effect of brain-derived neurotrophic factor treatment and forced arm use on functional motor recovery after small cortical ischemia. Stroke. 2004;35:992–997CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zheng, GZ, Li, Z, Quan, J, et al. VEGF enhances angiogenesis and promotes blood–brain barrier leakage in the ischemic brain. J Clin Invest. 2000;106:829–838Google Scholar
Wang, L, Zhang, Z, Wang, Y, Zhang, R, Chopp, M. Treatment of stroke with erythropoietin enhances neurogenesis and angiogenesis and improves neurological function in rats. Stroke. 2004;35:1732–1737Google Scholar
Tsai, PT, Ohab, JJ, Kertesz, N, et al. A critical role of erythropoietin receptor in neurogenesis and post-stroke recovery. J Neurosci. 2006;26:1269–1274Google Scholar
Schneider, UC, Schilling, L, Schroeck, H, Nebe, CT, Vajkoczy, P, Woitzik, J. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-induced vessel growth restores cerebral blood supply after bilateral carotid artery occlusion. Stroke. 2007;38:1320–1328Google Scholar
Schabitz, WR, Laage, R, Vogt, G, et al. AXIS: A trial of intravenous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2010;41:2545–2551Google Scholar
England, TJ, Abaei, M, Auer, DP, et al. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for mobilizing bone marrow stem cells in subacute stroke: The stem cell trial of recovery enhancement after Stroke 2 randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2012;43:405–411Google Scholar
Ringelstein, EB, Thijs, V, Norrving, B, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with acute ischemic stroke: Results of the AX200 for ischemic stroke trial. Stroke. 2013;44:2681–2687Google Scholar
Jerndal, M, Forsberg, K, Sena, ES, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of erythropoietin in experimental stroke. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2010;30:961–968Google Scholar
Kolb, B, Morshead, C, Gonzalez, C, et al. Growth factor-stimulated generation of new cortical tissue and functional recovery after stroke damage to the motor cortex of rats. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2007;27:983–997Google Scholar
Belayev, L, Khoutorova, L, Zhao, KL, Davidoff, AW, Moore, AF, Cramer, SC. A novel neurotrophic therapeutic strategy for experimental stroke. Brain Res. 2009;1280:117–123Google Scholar
Cramer, SC, Fitzpatrick, C, Warren, M, et al. The beta-hCG + erythropoietin in acute stroke (BETAS) study: A three-center, single-dose, open-label, noncontrolled, phase IIa safety trial. Stroke. 2010;41:927–931Google Scholar
Cramer, SC, Hill, MD. Human choriogonadotropin and epoetin alfa in acute ischemic stroke patients (REGENESIS-LED trial). Int J Stroke. 2014;9:321–327Google Scholar
Pardridge, WM. Drug transport across the blood–brain barrier. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2012;32:1959–1972Google Scholar
Hermann, DM. Enhancing the delivery of erythropoietin and its variants into the ischemic brain. Sci World J. 2009;9:967–969Google Scholar
Zhang, Y, Pardridge, WM. Conjugation of brain-derived neurotrophic factor to a blood–brain barrier drug targeting system enables neuroprotection in regional brain ischemia following intravenous injection of the neurotrophin. Brain Res. 2001;889:49–56Google Scholar
Yasuhara, T, Borlongan, C, Date, I. Ex vivo gene therapy: Transplantation of neurotrophic factor-secreting cells for cerebral ischemia. Front Biosci. 2006;11:760–775Google Scholar
Gallese, V, Fadiga, L, Fogassi, L, Rizzolatti, G. Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain. 1996;119:593–609Google Scholar
Fogassi, L, Ferrari, PF, Gesierich, B, Rozzi, S, Chersi, F, Rizzolatti, G. Parietal lobe: From action organization to intention understanding. Science. 2005;308:662–667Google Scholar
Kalra, L, Ratan, R. Recent advances in stroke rehabilitation 2006. Stroke. 2007;38:235–237Google Scholar
Small, SL, Buccino, G, Solodkin, A. The mirror neuron system and treatment of stroke. Dev Psychobiol. 2012;54:293–310Google Scholar
Page, SJ, Levine, P, Leonard, A. Mental practice in chronic stroke: Results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Stroke. 2007;38:1293–1297Google Scholar
Celnik, P, Webster, B, Glasser, DM, Cohen, LG. Effects of action observation on physical training after stroke. Stroke. 2008;39:1814–1820Google Scholar
Kho, AY, Liu, KP, Chung, RC. Meta-analysis on the effect of mental imagery on motor recovery of the hemiplegic upper extremity function. Aust Occup Ther J. 2014;61:38–48Google Scholar
Ramachandran, VS, Altschuler, EL. The use of visual feedback, in particular mirror visual feedback, in restoring brain function. Brain. 2009;132:1693–1710Google Scholar
Dodakian, L, Sharp, K, See, J, et al. Targeted engagement of a dorsal premotor circuit in the treatment of post-stroke paresis. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33:13–24Google Scholar
Berman, BD, Horovitz, SG, Venkataraman, G, Hallett, M. Self-modulation of primary motor cortex activity with motor and motor imagery tasks using real-time fMRI-based neurofeedback. NeuroImage. 2012;59:917–925Google Scholar
Sitaram, R, Veit, R, Stevens, B, et al. Acquired control of ventral premotor cortex activity by feedback training: An exploratory real-time fMRI and TMS study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26:256–265Google Scholar
Sulzer, J, Haller, S, Scharnowski, F, et al. Real-time fMRI neurofeedback: Progress and challenges. NeuroImage. 2013;76:386–399Google Scholar
Fasotti, L, van Kessel, M. Novel insights in the rehabilitation of neglect. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:780Google Scholar
Hondori, HM, Khademi, M, McKenzie, A, Dodakian, L, Lopes, C, Cramer, S. Utility of augmented reality in relation to virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2014;45:ATMP43Google Scholar
Hillis, AE. Aphasia: Progress in the last quarter of a century. Neurology. 2007;69:200–213Google Scholar
Hillis, AE. Pharmacological, surgical, and neurovascular interventions to augment acute aphasia recovery. Amer J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86:426–434Google Scholar
Zhang, X, Kedar, S, Lynn, MJ, Newman, NJ, Biousse, V. Homonymous hemianopias: Clinical–anatomic correlations in 904 cases. Neurology. 2006;66:906–910Google Scholar
Zhang, X, Kedar, S, Lynn, MJ, Newman, NJ, Biousse, V. Homonymous hemianopia in stroke. J Neuroophthalmol. 2006;26:180–183Google Scholar
Gilbert, CD, Wiesel, TN. Intrinsic connectivity and receptive field properties in visual cortex. Vision Res. 1985;25:365–374Google Scholar
Gilbert, CD, Wiesel, TN. Receptive field dynamics in adult primary visual cortex. Nature. 1992;356:150–152Google Scholar
Kaas, JH, Krubitzer, LA, Chino, YM, Langston, AL, Polley, EH, Blair, N. Reorganization of retinotopic cortical maps in adult mammals after lesions of the retina. Science. 1990;248:229–231Google Scholar
Zhang, X, Kedar, S, Lynn, MJ, Newman, NJ, Biousse, V. Natural history of homonymous hemianopia. Neurology. 2006;66:901–905Google Scholar
Pambakian, A, Currie, J, Kennard, C. Rehabilitation strategies for patients with homonymous visual field defects. J Neuroophthalmol. 2005;25:136–142Google Scholar
Kasten, E, Wust, S, Behrens-Baumann, W, Sabel, BA. Computer-based training for the treatment of partial blindness. Nature Med. 1998;4:1083–1087Google Scholar
Kasten, E, Poggel, DA, Sabel, BA. Computer-based training of stimulus detection improves color and simple pattern recognition in the defective field of hemianopic subjects. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000;12:1001–1012Google Scholar
Poggel, DA, Kasten, E, Sabel, BA. Attentional cueing improves vision restoration therapy in patients with visual field defects. Neurology. 2004;63:2069–2076Google Scholar
Kasten, E, Muller-Oehring, E, Sabel, BA. Stability of visual field enlargements following computer-based restitution training – results of a follow-up. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2001;23:297–305Google Scholar
Spitzyna, GA, Wise, RJ, McDonald, SA, et al. Optokinetic therapy improves text reading in patients with hemianopic alexia: A controlled trial. Neurology. 2007;68:1922–1930Google Scholar
Kleim, JA, Jones, TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: Implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51:S225–S239Google Scholar
Cramer, SC. Issues in clinical trial methodology for brain repair after stroke. In Cramer, SC, Nudo, RJ, eds. Brain Repair After Stroke. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2010:173–182Google Scholar
Green, AR, Hainsworth, AH, Jackson, DM. GABA potentiation: A logical pharmacological approach for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Neuropharmacology. 2000;39:1483–1494Google Scholar
Ovbiagele, B, Kidwell, CS, Starkman, S, Saver, JL. Neuroprotective agents for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2003;3:9–20Google Scholar
Kozlowski, D, Jones, T, Schallert, T. Pruning of dendrites and restoration of function after brain damage: Role of the NMDA receptor. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 1994;7:119–126Google Scholar
Wahlgren, N, Martinsson, L. New concepts for drug therapy after stroke. Can we enhance recovery? Cerebrovasc Dis. 1998;8 Suppl 5:33–38Google Scholar
Barth, T, Hoane, M, Barbay, S, Saponjic, R. Effects of glutamate antagonists on the recovery and maintenance of behavioral function after brain injury. In Goldstein, L, ed. Restorative Neurology: Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Recovery After Stroke. Armonk, NY: Futura Publishing; 1998;79–90Google Scholar
Narasimhan, P, Liu, J, Song, YS, Massengale, JL, Chan, PH. VEGF stimulates the ERK 1/2 signaling pathway and apoptosis in cerebral endothelial cells after ischemic conditions. Stroke. 2009;40:1467–1473Google Scholar
Clarkson, AN, Overman, JJ, Zhong, S, Mueller, R, Lynch, G, Carmichael, ST. AMPA receptor-induced local brain-derived neurotrophic factor signaling mediates motor recovery after stroke. J Neurosci. 2011;31:3766–3775Google Scholar
Zhao, BQ, Tejima, E, Lo, EH. Neurovascular proteases in brain injury, hemorrhage and remodeling after stroke. Stroke. 2007;38:748–752Google Scholar
Allan, SM, Rothwell, NJ. Inflammation in central nervous system injury. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;358:1669–1677Google Scholar
Lucas, SM, Rothwell, NJ, Gibson, RM. The role of inflammation in CNS injury and disease. Br J Pharmacol. 2006;147 Suppl 1:S232–240Google Scholar
Fang, PC, Barbay, S, Plautz, EJ, Hoover, E, Strittmatter, SM, Nudo, RJ. Combination of NEP 1–40 treatment and motor training enhances behavioral recovery after a focal cortical infarct in rats. Stroke. 2010;41:544–549Google Scholar
Starkey, ML, Schwab, ME. Anti-Nogo-A and training: Can one plus one equal three? Exp Neurol. 2012;235:53–61Google Scholar
Hovda, D, Feeney, D. Amphetamine with experience promotes recovery of locomotor function after unilateral frontal cortex injury in the cat. Brain Res. 1984;298:358–361Google Scholar
Adkins-Muir, D, Jones, T. Cortical electrical stimulation combined with rehabilitative training: Enhanced functional recovery and dendritic plasticity following focal cortical ischemia in rats. Neurol Res. 2003;25:780–788Google Scholar
Adkins, DL, Hsu, JE, Jones, TA. Motor cortical stimulation promotes synaptic plasticity and behavioral improvements following sensorimotor cortex lesions. Exp Neurol. 2008;212:14–28Google Scholar
Cramer, SC. Stratifying patients with stroke in trials that target brain repair. Stroke. 2010;41:S114–S116Google Scholar
Woldag, H, Hummelsheim, H. Evidence-based physiotherapeutic concepts for improving arm and hand function in stroke patients: A review. J Neurol. 2002;249:518–528Google Scholar
Cramer, SC. Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery. Ann Neurol. 2008;63:272–287Google Scholar
Cramer, SC, Koroshetz, WJ, Finklestein, SP. The case for modality-specific outcome measures in clinical trials of stroke recovery-promoting agents. Stroke. 2007;38:1393–1395Google Scholar