Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/18115
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBoyd, Lara A-
dc.contributor.authorHayward, Kathryn S-
dc.contributor.authorWard, Nick S-
dc.contributor.authorStinear, Cathy M-
dc.contributor.authorRosso, Charlotte-
dc.contributor.authorFisher, Rebecca J-
dc.contributor.authorCarter, Alexandre R-
dc.contributor.authorLeff, Alex P-
dc.contributor.authorCopland, David A-
dc.contributor.authorCarey, Leeanne M-
dc.contributor.authorCohen, Leonardo G-
dc.contributor.authorBasso, D Michele-
dc.contributor.authorMaguire, Jane M-
dc.contributor.authorCramer, Steven C-
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-22T23:26:57Z-
dc.date.available2018-07-22T23:26:57Z-
dc.date.issued2017-10-
dc.identifier.citationNeurorehabilitation and neural repair 2017; 31(10-11): 864-876-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/18115-
dc.description.abstractThe most difficult clinical questions in stroke rehabilitation are "What is this patient's potential for recovery?" and "What is the best rehabilitation strategy for this person, given her/his clinical profile?" Without answers to these questions, clinicians struggle to make decisions regarding the content and focus of therapy, and researchers design studies that inadvertently mix participants who have a high likelihood of responding with those who do not. Developing and implementing biomarkers that distinguish patient subgroups will help address these issues and unravel the factors important to the recovery process. The goal of the present paper is to provide a consensus statement regarding the current state of the evidence for stroke recovery biomarkers. Biomarkers of motor, somatosensory, cognitive and language domains across the recovery timeline post-stroke are considered; with focus on brain structure and function, and exclusion of blood markers and genetics. We provide evidence for biomarkers that are considered ready to be included in clinical trials, as well as others that are promising but not ready and so represent a developmental priority. We conclude with an example that illustrates the utility of biomarkers in recovery and rehabilitation research, demonstrating how the inclusion of a biomarker may enhance future clinical trials. In this way, we propose a way forward for when and where we can include biomarkers to advance the efficacy of the practice of, and research into, rehabilitation and recovery after stroke.-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectBiomarker-
dc.subjectclinical trial-
dc.subjectcognition-
dc.subjectfunction-
dc.subjecthuman-
dc.subjectlanguage-
dc.subjectmotor-
dc.subjectneuroimaging-
dc.subjectsomatosensory-
dc.subjectstratification-
dc.titleBiomarkers of Stroke Recovery: Consensus-Based Core Recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.journaltitleNeurorehabilitation and neural repair-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Physical Therapy & the Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada-
dc.identifier.affiliationStroke Division, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationSobell Department of Motor Neuroscience, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medicine and Centre for Brain Research, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand-
dc.identifier.affiliationInserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06 UMR S 1127, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, ICM, France-
dc.identifier.affiliationAP-HP, Stroke Unit, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, France-
dc.identifier.affiliationDivision of Rehabilitation & Ageing, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, MO, USA-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neurology & Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, Queens Square, London, UK-
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Health & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research, Brisbane, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe, University, Bundoora, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationHuman Cortical Physiology and Neurorehabilitation Section, NINDS, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA-
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA-
dc.identifier.affiliationFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Sydney, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity of California, Irvine, CA, USA-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepts. Neurology, Anatomy & Neurobiology, and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Irvine, CA, USA-
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1545968317732680-
dc.identifier.pubmedid29233071-
dc.type.austinJournal Article-
dc.type.austinReview-
local.name.researcherCarey, Leeanne M
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptThe Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health-
crisitem.author.deptThe Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

40
checked on Dec 21, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.