The effects of stimulation of the anterior cingulate gyrus in cats with freedom of movement

Stimuli of varying strength, frequency and duration were applied to the anterior cingulate gyrus in unanesthetized cats with freedom of movement. The motor, vegetative and electrical effects of these stimuli, although inconstant, lead to a consideration of the role of this structure in the extrapyramidal control of motricity

How to do health services research in stroke: a focus on performance measurement and quality improvement

The objective of this ‘How to’ research series article is to provide guidance on getting started in Health Services Research. The purpose of health services research is to contribute knowledge that can be used to help improve health systems and clinical services through influencing policy and practice. The methods used are broad, have varying levels of rigour and may require different specialist skills. This paper sets out practical steps for undertaking health services research. Importantly, use of the highlighted techniques can identify solutions to address inadequate knowledge translation or promote greater access to evidence-based stroke care to optimise patient outcomes

Education-only versus a multifaceted intervention for improving assessment of rehabilitation needs after stroke: a cluster randomised trial

In 2011, more than half of the patients with stroke in Australian hospitals were not assessed for the need for rehabilitation. Further, there were no recommended criteria to guide rehabilitation assessment decisions. Subsequently, a decision-making tool called the Assessment for Rehabilitation Tool (ART) was developed. The ART was designed to assist Australian hospital clinicians to identify the rehabilitation needs of patients with stroke using evidence-based criteria. The ART was released and made freely available for use in 2012. This study evaluated the effectiveness of an education-only intervention (1 onsite education session and distribution of the ART) and a multifaceted intervention (2 or more onsite education sessions, distribution of the ART, audit and feedback, barrier identification, site-specific strategy development, promotion of interdisciplinary teamwork, opinion leaders and reminders) for improving assessments of rehabilitation needs after stroke. Ten hospitals in 2 states of Australia were randomly assigned to an education-only or a multifaceted intervention. Medical records were audited by assessors blinded to group allocation before and after the implementation period. Difference in the proportion of patients assessed for rehabilitation before and after the intervention was analysed using mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, with time period as the dependent variable, an interaction between intervention type and time included to test for differences between the interventions, and hospital included as the random effect to account for patient clustering. Data from 586 patients (284 pre-intervention; 302 post-intervention; age 76 years, 59 % male) showed that the multifaceted intervention was not more effective than education-only in improving the proportion of patients whose rehabilitation needs were assessed (reference category education-only; odds ratio 1.29, 95 % confidence interval 0.63-2.67, p = 0.483). Post-intervention, the odds of a patient's rehabilitation needs being assessed was 3.69 times greater than pre-intervention (95 % confidence interval 2.57-5.30, p < 0.001). Evidence-based criteria were not consistently used when patients were deemed to have no rehabilitation needs. A multifaceted intervention was not more effective than education-only in improving the assessment of rehabilitation needs of patients with stroke. Further interventions are required to ensure that all patients are assessed for the need for rehabilitation using evidence-based criteria. ANZCTR (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry), ACTRN12616000340437.Elizabeth A. Lynch, Dominique A. Cadilhac, Julie A. Luker and Susan L. Hillie

An updated systematic review of stroke clinical practice guidelines to inform aphasia management

Background: Aphasia is a common consequence of stroke, and people who live with this condition experience poor outcomes. Adherence to clinical practice guidelines can promote high-quality service delivery and optimize patient outcomes. However, there are currently no high-quality guidelines specific to post-stroke aphasia management. Aims: To identify and evaluate recommendations from high-quality stroke guidelines that can inform aphasia management. Summary of review: We conducted an updated systematic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify high-quality clinical guidelines published between January 2015 and October 2022. Primary searches were performed using electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Gray literature searches were conducted using Google Scholar, guideline databases, and stroke websites. Clinical practice guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. Recommendations were extracted from high-quality guidelines (scored \u3e 66.7% on Domain 3: “Rigor of Development”), classified as aphasia-specific or aphasia-related, and categorized into clinical practice areas. Evidence ratings and source citations were assessed, and similar recommendations were grouped. Twenty-three stroke clinical practice guidelines were identified and 9 (39%) met our criteria for rigor of development. From these guidelines, 82 recommendations for aphasia management were extracted: 31 were aphasia-specific, 51 aphasia-related, 67 evidence-based, and 15 consensus-based. Conclusion: More than half of stroke clinical practice guidelines identified did not meet our criteria for rigorous development. We identified 9 high-quality guidelines and 82 recommendations to inform aphasia management. Most recommendations were aphasia-related; aphasia-specific recommendation gaps were identified in three clinical practice areas: “accessing community supports,” “return to work, leisure, driving,” and “interprofessional practice.

Stroke systems of care in high-income countries: what is optimal?

Stroke is a complex, time-sensitive, medical emergency that requires well functioning systems of care to optimise treatment and improve patient outcomes. Education and training campaigns are needed to improve both the recognition of stroke among the general public and the response of emergency medical services. Specialised stroke ambulances (mobile stroke units) have been piloted in many cities to speed up the diagnosis, triage, and emergency treatment of people with acute stroke symptoms. Hospital-based interdisciplinary stroke units remain the central feature of a modern stroke service. Many have now developed a role in the very early phase (hyperacute units) plus outreach for patients who return home (early supported discharge services). Different levels (comprehensive and primary) of stroke centre and telemedicine networks have been developed to coordinate the various service components with specialist investigations and interventions including rehabilitation. Major challenges include the harmonisation of resources for stroke across the whole patient journey (including the rapid, accurate triage of patients who require highly specialised treatment in comprehensive stroke centres) and the development of technology to improve communication across different parts of a service

Statistical analysis plan for the COMPARE trial: a 3-arm randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of Constraint-induced Aphasia Therapy Plus and Multi-modality Aphasia Therapy to usual care in chronic post-stroke aphasia (COMPARE)

BackgroundWhile high-quality meta-analyses have confirmed the effectiveness of aphasia therapy after stroke, there is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of different aphasia interventions. Two commonly used interventions, Constraint-induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT Plus) and Multi-modality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT), are hypothesised to rely on diverse underlying neural mechanisms for recovery and may be differentially responsive to aphasia severity. COMPARE is a prospective randomised open-blinded end-point trial designed to determine whether, in people with chronic post-stroke aphasia living in the community, CIAT Plus and M-MAT provide greater therapeutic benefit compared to usual care, are differentially effective according to aphasia severity, and are cost-effective. This paper details the statistical analysis plan for the COMPARE trial developed prior to data analysis.MethodsParticipants (n = 216) are randomised to one of three arms, CIAT Plus, M-MAT or usual care, and undertake therapy with a study trained speech pathologist in groups of three participants stratified by aphasia severity. Therapy occurs for 3 h blocks per day for 10 days across 2 weeks. The primary clinical outcome is aphasia severity as measured by the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ) immediately post intervention. Secondary outcomes include WAB-R-AQ at 12-week follow-up, and functional communication, discourse efficiency, multimodal communication, and health-related quality of life immediately post intervention and at 12-week follow-up.ResultsLinear mixed models (LMMs) will be used to analyse differences between M-MAT and UC, and CIAT-Plus and UC on each outcome measure immediately and at 12 weeks post-intervention. The LMM for WAB-R-AQ will assess the differences in efficacy between M-MAT and CIAT-Plus. All analyses will control for baseline aphasia severity (fixed effect) and for the clustering effect of treatment groups (random effect).DiscussionThis trial will provide relative effectiveness data for two common interventions for people with chronic post-stroke aphasia, and highlight possible differential effects based on aphasia severity. Together with the health economic analysis data, the results will enable more informed personalised prescription for aphasia therapy after stroke.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12615000618550 . Registered on 15 June 2016

Statistical analysis plan for the stepped wedge clinical trial Healing Right Way—enhancing rehabilitation services for Aboriginal Australians after brain injury

Background Aboriginal Australians are known to suffer high levels of acquired brain injury (stroke and traumatic brain injury) yet experience significant barriers in accessing rehabilitation services. The aim of the Healing Right Way trial is to evaluate a culturally secure intervention for Aboriginal people with newly acquired brain injury to improve their rehabilitation experience and quality of life. Following publication of the trial protocol, this paper outlines the statistical analysis plan prior to locking the database. Methods The trial involves a stepped wedge design with four steps over 3 years. Participants were 108 adult Aboriginal Australians admitted to one of eight hospitals (four rural, four urban) in Western Australia within 6 weeks of onset of a new stroke or traumatic brain injury who consented to follow-up for 26 weeks. All hospital sites started in a control phase, with the intervention assigned to pairs of sites (one metropolitan, one rural) every 26 weeks until all sites received the intervention. The two-component intervention involves training in culturally safe care for hospital sites and enhanced support provided to participants by Aboriginal Brain Injury Coordinators during their hospital stay and after discharge. The primary outcome is quality of life as measured by the Euro QOL–5D-3L VAS. A mixed effects linear regression model will be used to assess the between-group difference at 26 weeks post-injury. The model will control for injury type and severity, age at recruitment and time since commencement of the trial, as fixed effects. Recruitment site and participant will be included as random effects. Secondary outcomes include measurements of function, independence, anxiety and depression, carer strain, allied health occasions of service received and hospital compliance with minimum processes of care based on clinical guidelines and best practice models of care. Discussion The trial will provide the first data surrounding the effectiveness of an intervention package for Aboriginal people with brain injury and inform future planning of rehabilitation services for this population. The statistical analysis plan outlines the analyses to be undertaken. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000139279. Registered 30 January, 2018

Economic evaluation of the very early rehabilitation in speech (verse) intervention

Introduction: There is limited evidence on the costs and outcomes of patients with aphasia after stroke. The aim of this study was to estimate costs in patients with aphasia after stroke according to the aphasia therapies provided. Methods: A three-arm, prospective, randomized, parallel group, open-label, blinded endpoint assessment trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand. Usual ward-based care (Usual Care) was compared to additional usual ward-based therapy (Usual Care Plus) and a prescribed and structured aphasia therapy program in addition to Usual Care (the VERSE intervention). Information about healthcare utilization and productivity were collected to estimate costs in Australian dollars for 2017–18. Multivariable regression models with bootstrapping were used to estimate differences in costs and outcomes (clinically meaningful change in aphasia severity measured by the WAB-R-AQ). Results: Overall, 202/246 (82%) participants completed follow-up at 26 weeks. Median costs per person were $23,322 (Q1 5,367, Q3 52,669, n = 63) for Usual Care,$26,923 (Q1 7,303, Q3 76,174, n = 70) for Usual Care Plus and $31,143 (Q1 7,001. Q3 62,390, n = 69) for VERSE. No differences in costs and outcomes were detected between groups. Usual Care Plus was inferior (i.e. more costly and less effective) in 64% of iterations, and in 18% was less costly and less effective compared to Usual Care. VERSE was inferior in 65% of samples and less costly and less effective in 12% compared to Usual Care. Conclusion: There was limited evidence that additional intensively delivered aphasia therapy within the context of usual acute care provided was worthwhile in terms of costs for the outcomes gained