Effect of Dextroamphetamine on Poststroke Motor Recovery: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Data from animal models show that the administration of dextroamphetamine combined with task-relevant training facilitates recovery after focal brain injury. Results of clinical trials in patients with stroke have been inconsistent.\nObjectives: To collect data important for future studies evaluating the effect of dextroamphetamine combined with physiotherapy for improving poststroke motor recovery and to test the efficacy of the approach.\nDesign, Setting, Participants: This pilot, double-blind, block-randomized clinical trial included patients with cortical or subcortical ischemic stroke and moderate or severe motor deficits from 5 rehabilitation hospitals or units. Participants were screened and enrolled from March 2001 through March 2003. The primary outcome was assessed 3 months after stroke. Study analysis was completed December 31, 2015. A total of 1665 potential participants were screened and 64 were randomized. Participants had to begin treatment 10 to 30 days after ischemic stroke. Data analysis was based on intention to treat.\nInterventions: Participants were allocated to a regimen of 10 mg of dextroamphetamine (n = 32) or placebo (n = 32) combined with a 1-hour physical therapy session beginning 1 hour after drug or placebo administration every 4 days for 6 sessions in addition to standard rehabilitation.\nMain Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the difference between groups in change in Fugl-Meyer motor scores from baseline to 3 months after stroke (intention to treat with dextroamphetamine). Secondary exploratory measures included the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, Canadian Neurological Scale, Action Research Arm Test, modified Rankin Scale score, Functional Independence Measure, Ambulation Speed and Distance, Mini-Mental State Examination, Beck Depression Inventory, and Stroke Impact Scale.\nResults: Among the 64 patients randomized to dextroamphetamine vs placebo (55% men; median age, 66 years; age range, 27-91 years), no overall treatment-associated difference in the mean (SEM) change in Fugl-Meyer motor scores from baseline to 3 months after stroke was noted (-18.65 [2.27] points with dextroamphetamine vs -20.83 [2.94] points with placebo; P = .58). No overall treatment-associated differences in any of the study's secondary measures and no differences in subgroups based on stroke location or baseline severity were found. No adverse events were attributed to study treatments.\nConclusions and Relevance: Treatment with dextroamphetamine combined with physical therapy did not improve recovery of motor function compared with placebo combined with physical therapy as assessed 3 months after hemispheric ischemic stroke. The studied treatment regimen was safe.\nTrial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01905371.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».