↓ Skip to main content

Functional Strength Training and Movement Performance Therapy for Upper Limb Recovery Early Poststroke—Efficacy, Neural Correlates, Predictive Markers, and Cost-Effectiveness: FAST-INdiCATE Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Functional Strength Training and Movement Performance Therapy for Upper Limb Recovery Early Poststroke—Efficacy, Neural Correlates, Predictive Markers, and Cost-Effectiveness: FAST-INdiCATE Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00733
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan M. Hunter, Heidi Johansen-Berg, Nick Ward, Niamh C. Kennedy, Elizabeth Chandler, Christopher John Weir, John Rothwell, Alan M. Wing, Michael J. Grey, Garry Barton, Nick Malachy Leavey, Claire Havis, Roger N. Lemon, Jane Burridge, Amy Dymond, Valerie M. Pomeroy

Abstract

Variation in physiological deficits underlying upper limb paresis after stroke could influence how people recover and to which physical therapy they best respond. To determine whether functional strength training (FST) improves upper limb recovery more than movement performance therapy (MPT). To identify: (a) neural correlates of response and (b) whether pre-intervention neural characteristics predict response. Explanatory investigations within a randomised, controlled, observer-blind, and multicentre trial. Randomisation was computer-generated and concealed by an independent facility until baseline measures were completed. Primary time point was outcome, after the 6-week intervention phase. Follow-up was at 6 months after stroke. With some voluntary muscle contraction in the paretic upper limb, not full dexterity, when recruited up to 60 days after an anterior cerebral circulation territory stroke. Conventional physical therapy (CPT) plus either MPT or FST for up to 90 min-a-day, 5 days-a-week for 6 weeks. FST was "hands-off" progressive resistive exercise cemented into functional task training. MPT was "hands-on" sensory/facilitation techniques for smooth and accurate movement. The primary efficacy measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Neural measures: fractional anisotropy (FA) corpus callosum midline; asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA; and resting motor threshold (RMT) of motor-evoked potentials. Covariance models tested ARAT change from baseline. At outcome: correlation coefficients assessed relationship between change in ARAT and neural measures; an interaction term assessed whether baseline neural characteristics predicted response. 288 Participants had: mean age of 72.2 (SD 12.5) years and mean ARAT 25.5 (18.2). For 240 participants with ARAT at baseline and outcome the mean change was 9.70 (11.72) for FST + CPT and 7.90 (9.18) for MPT + CPT, which did not differ statistically (p = 0.298). Correlations between ARAT change scores and baseline neural values were between 0.199,p = 0.320 for MPT + CPT RMT (n = 27) and -0.147,p = 0.385 for asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA (n = 37). Interaction effects between neural values and ARAT change between baseline and outcome were not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in upper limb improvement between FST and MPT. Baseline neural measures did not correlate with upper limb recovery or predict therapy response. Current Controlled Trials: ISRCT 19090862, http://www.controlled-trials.com.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 17%
Student > Master 22 12%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 60 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 39 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 13%
Neuroscience 21 11%
Sports and Recreations 14 7%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 67 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,806,830
of 24,973,800 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#720
of 14,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,914
of 452,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#12
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,973,800 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.