In people receiving rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations of the lower and/or upper limb after stroke, does adding extra rehabilitation (of the same content as the usual rehabilitation) improve activity? What is the amount of extra rehabilitation that needs to be provided to achieve a beneficial effect? Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. Adults aged 18 years or older that had a diagnosis of stroke. Extra rehabilitation with the same content as usual rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations of the lower and/or upper limb. Activity measured as lower or upper limb ability. A total of 14 studies, comprising 15 comparisons, met the inclusion criteria. Pooling data from all the included studies showed that extra rehabilitation improved activity immediately after the intervention period (SMD=0.39, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.71, I(2)=66%). When only studies with a large increase in rehabilitation (> 100%) were included, the effect was greater (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.94, I(2)=44%). There was a trend towards a positive relationship (r=0.53, p=0.09) between extra rehabilitation and improved activity. The turning point on the ROC curve of false versus true benefit (AUC=0.88, p=0.04) indicated that at least an extra 240% of rehabilitation was needed for significant likelihood that extra rehabilitation would improve activity. Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation aimed at reducing activity limitations improves activity in people after stroke. The amount of extra rehabilitation that needs to be provided to achieve a beneficial effect is large. PROSPERO CRD42012003221. [Schneider EJ, Lannin NA, Ada L, Schmidt J (2016) Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review.Journal of Physiotherapy62: 182-187].

Background. Feedback is used in rehabilitation to improve self-awareness in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI), but there have been no comparisons of the different methods of providing feedback. Objective. To compare the effect of different methods of feedback on impaired self-awareness after TBI. Method. This was a randomized, assessor-blinded trial with concealed allocation. A total of 54 participants with TBI and impaired self-awareness (85% male) were recruited from inpatient and community rehabilitation settings. Participants performed a meal preparation task on 4 occasions and were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 feedback intervention groups: video plus verbal feedback, verbal feedback, or experiential feedback. The primary outcome was improvement in online awareness measured by the number of errors made during task completion. Secondary outcomes included level of intellectual awareness, self-perception of rehabilitation, and emotional status. Results. Receiving video plus verbal feedback reduced the number of errors more than verbal feedback alone (mean difference = 19.7 errors; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.2-30.1) and experiential feedback alone (mean difference = 12.4 errors; 95% CI = 1.8-23.0). Conclusion. The results suggest that the video plus verbal feedback approach used in this study was effective in improving self-awareness in people with TBI. The results also provide evidence that improvement in self-awareness was not accompanied by deterioration in emotional status.

Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine is an international peer-review journal published in English, with at least 10 issues published per year.

Background. Errorless learning (ELL) and error-based learning (EBL) are commonly used approaches to rehabilitation for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, it is unknown whether making errors is beneficial in the learning process to promote skills generalization after severe TBI. Objective. To compare the efficacy of ELL and EBL for improving skills generalization, self-awareness, behavioral competency, and psychosocial functioning after severe TBI. Method. A total of 54 adults (79% male; mean age = 38.0 years, SD = 13.4) with severe TBI were randomly allocated to ELL or EBL and received 8 × 1.5-hour therapy sessions that involved meal preparation and other goal-directed activities. The primary outcome was total errors on the Cooking Task (near-transfer). Secondary outcome measures included the Zoo Map Test (far-transfer), Awareness Questionnaire, Patient Competency Rating Scale, Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale, and Care and Needs Scale. Results. Controlling for baseline performance and years of education, participants in the EBL group made significantly fewer errors at postintervention (mean = 36.25; 95% CI = 32.5-40.0) than ELL participants (mean = 42.57; 95% CI = 38.8-46.3). EBL participants also demonstrated greater self-awareness and behavioral competency at postintervention than ELL participants (P < .05). There were no significant differences on other secondary outcomes (P > .05), or at the 6-month follow-up assessment. Conclusion. EBL was found to be more effective than ELL for enhancing skills generalization on a task related to training and improving self-awareness and behavioral competency.

To build an understanding of the neurobiology underpinning arm recovery in people with severe arm impairment due to stroke, we conducted a pooled individual data systematic review to: 1) characterize brain biomarkers; 2) determine relationship(s) between biomarkers and motor outcome; and 3) establish relationship(s) between biomarkers and motor recovery. Three electronic databases were searched up to October 2, 2015. Eligible studies included adults with severe arm impairment after stroke. Descriptive statistics were calculated to characterize brain biomarkers, and pooling of individual patient data was performed using mixed-effects linear regression to examine relationships between brain biomarkers and motor outcome and recovery. Thirty-eight articles including individual data from 372 people with severe arm impairment were analysed. The majority of individuals were in the chronic (> 6 months) phase post stroke (51%) and had a subcortical stroke (49%). The presence of a motor evoked potential (indexed by transcranial magnetic stimulation) was the only biomarker related to better motor outcome (p = 0.02). There was no relationship between motor outcome and stroke volume (cm3), location (cortical, subcortical, mixed) or side (left vs. right), and corticospinal tract asymmetry index (extracted from diffusion weighted imaging). Only one study had longitudinal data, thus no data pooling was possible to address change over time (preventing our third objective). Based on the available evidence, motor evoked potentials at rest were the only biomarker that predicted motor outcome in individuals with severe arm impairment following stroke. Given that few biomarkers emerged, this review highlights the need to move beyond currently known biomarkers and identify new indices with sufficient variability and sensitivity to guide recovery models in individuals with severe motor impairments following stroke. CRD42015026107.