CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 399Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Very Early Constraint-Induced Movement during Stroke Rehabilitation (VECTORS): A single-center RCT

Open access
Dromerick, A. W., Lang, C. E., Birkenmeier, R. L., Wagner, J. M., Miller, J. P., Videen, T. O., Powers, W. J., Wolf, S. L., Edwards, D. F.·2009·Neurology
DOI 10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181ab2b27PMC PMC2715572
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is among the most developed training approaches for motor restoration of the upper extremity (UE). METHODS: Very Early Constraint-Induced Movement during Stroke Rehabilitation (VECTORS) was a single-blind phase II trial of CIMT during acute inpatient rehabilitation comparing traditional UE therapy with dose-matched and high-intensity CIMT protocols. Participants were adaptively randomized on rehabilitation admission, and received 2 weeks of study-related treatments. The primary endpoint was the total Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) score on the more affected side at 90 days after stroke onset. A mixed model analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 52 participants (mean age 63.9 +/- 14 years) were randomized 9.65 +/- 4.5 days after onset. Mean NIHSS was 5.3 +/- 1.8; mean total ARAT score was 22.5 +/- 15.6; 77% had ischemic stroke. Groups were equivalent at baseline on all randomization variables. As expected, all groups improved with time on the total ARAT score. There was a significant time x group interaction (F = 3.1, p < 0.01), such that the high intensity CIT group had significantly less improvement at day 90. No significant differences were found between the dose-matched CIMT and control groups at day 90. MRI of a subsample showed no evidence of activity-dependent lesion enlargement. CONCLUSION: Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) was equally as effective but not superior to an equal dose of traditional therapy during inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Higher intensity CIMT resulted in less motor improvement at 90 days, indicating an inverse dose-response relationship. Motor intervention trials should control for dose, and higher doses of motor training cannot be assumed to be more beneficial, particularly early after stroke.

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 · 10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181ab2b27

Cites

36 of 36 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 36 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Wong DL Hockenberg-Eaton M Wilson D Winklestein ML Schwarz P. Wong’s Essentials of Pediatric Nursing. St. Louis: Mosby;
  2. Yesavage JA. Geriatric Depression Scale. Psychopharmacol Bull 1988;24:709–711.
  3. Meinert CL. Clinical Trials: Design Conduct and Analysis. New York: Oxford Press;

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–398 of 398

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dromerick, A. W., Lang, C. E., Birkenmeier, R. L., Wagner, J. M., Miller, J. P., Videen, T. O., Powers, W. J., Wolf, S. L., & Edwards, D. F.
Affiliations
  • MedStar National Rehabilitation Hospital (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
ORCID
Venue
Neurology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2009-07-21
Volume
73
Issue
3
Pages
195-201
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
DOI
10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181ab2b27
PMC
PMC2715572
OpenAlex
W1967063999
Cited by
399
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 42
FWCI
30.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation (21002032)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS041261, 1 RO1 NS41261-01A1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Keywords
constraint-induced movement therapy, stroke rehabilitation, upper limb motor recovery, dose-response relationship, acute inpatient rehabilitation, ischemic stroke, Action Research Arm Test, lesion expansion
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Arm, Brain Ischemia, Exercise Therapy, Female, Hand, Humans, Functional Laterality, Male, Middle Aged, Paresis, Restraint, Physical, Time, Time Factors, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Muscle, Skeletal, Recovery of Function, Stroke, Physical Therapy Modalities

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