Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Safety, Feasibility, and Efficacy of Vagus Nerve Stimulation Paired With Upper-Limb Rehabilitation After Ischemic Stroke

Open access
Dawson, Jesse, Pierce, David, Dixit, Anand, Kimberley, Teresa J., Robertson, Michele, Tarver, Brent, Hilmi, Omar, McLean, John, Forbes, Kirsten, Kilgard, Michael P., Rennaker, Robert L., Cramer, Steven C., Walters, Matthew, Engineer, Navzer·2016·Stroke
DOI 10.1161/strokeaha.115.010477
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background and Purpose—: Recent animal studies demonstrate that vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with movement induces movement-specific plasticity in motor cortex and improves forelimb function after stroke. We conducted a randomized controlled clinical pilot study of VNS paired with rehabilitation on upper-limb function after ischemic stroke. Methods—: Twenty-one participants with ischemic stroke >6 months before and moderate to severe upper-limb impairment were randomized to VNS plus rehabilitation or rehabilitation alone. Rehabilitation consisted of three 2-hour sessions per week for 6 weeks, each involving >400 movement trials. In the VNS group, movements were paired with 0.5-second VNS. The primary objective was to assess safety and feasibility. Secondary end points included change in upper-limb measures (including the Fugl–Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity). Results—: Nine participants were randomized to VNS plus rehabilitation and 11 to rehabilitation alone. There were no serious adverse device effects. One patient had transient vocal cord palsy and dysphagia after implantation. Five had minor adverse device effects including nausea and taste disturbance on the evening of therapy. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the change in Fugl–Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity scores was not significantly different (between-group difference, 5.7 points; 95% confidence interval, −0.4 to 11.8). In the per-protocol analysis, there was a significant difference in change in Fugl–Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity score (between-group difference, 6.5 points; 95% confidence interval, 0.4 to 12.6). Conclusions—: This study suggests that VNS paired with rehabilitation is feasible and has not raised safety concerns. Additional studies of VNS in adults with chronic stroke will now be performed. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01669161.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/strokeaha.115.010477

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Dawson, J., Pierce, D., Dixit, A., Kimberley, T. J., Robertson, M., Tarver, B., Hilmi, O., McLean, J., Forbes, K., Kilgard, M. P., Rennaker, R. L., Cramer, S. C., Walters, M., & Engineer, N.
Venue
Stroke
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2016-01
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
143-150
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
DOI
10.1161/strokeaha.115.010477
OpenAlex
W2195108234
Cited by
300
References
30
FWCI
15.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.