Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Stroke. 2007;38:2101-2107
Published online before print May 31, 2007, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.482869
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
38/7/2101    most recent
STROKEAHA.107.482869v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by De Wit, L.
Right arrow Articles by De Weerdt, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by De Wit, L.
Right arrow Articles by De Weerdt, W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Rehabilitation, Stroke
Right arrowRelated Article

(Stroke. 2007;38:2101.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.


Original Contributions

Motor and Functional Recovery After Stroke

A Comparison of 4 European Rehabilitation Centers

Liesbet De Wit, PT, PhD; Koen Putman, PT, PhD; Birgit Schuback, PT, MSc; Arnost Komárek, PhD; Felix Angst, MD, MPH; Ilse Baert, PT, MSc; Peter Berman, MB, BS, FRCP; Kris Bogaerts, MSc; Nadine Brinkmann, PT, BSc; Louise Connell, PT, BSc; Eddy Dejaeger, MD, PhD; Hilde Feys, PT, PhD; Walter Jenni, MD; Christiane Kaske, PT, BSc; Emmanuel Lesaffre, PhD; Mark Leys, PhD; Nadina Lincoln, PhD; Fred Louckx, PhD; Wilfried Schupp, MD; Bozena Smith, OT, MSc Willy De Weerdt, PT, PhD

From Department of Rehabilitation Sciences (L.D.W., I.B., H.F., W.D.W.), Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium; Department of Health Sciences and Medical Sociology (K.P., M.L., F.L.), Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium; RehaClinic Zurzach (B.S., F.A., C.K., W.J.), Switzerland; NHS Trust (P.B.) Nottingham, UK; Biostatistical Center (A.K., K.B., E.L.), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium; Fachklinik Herzogenaurach (N.B., W.S.), Germany; Institute of Work, Health and Organisations (L.C. N.L., B.S.), University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; University Hospital Pellenberg (E.D.), Belgium.

Correspondence to Liesbet De Wit, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tervuursevest 101, 3001 Heverlee (Leuven), Belgium. E-mail Liesbet.Dewit{at}faber.kuleuven.be

Background and Purpose— Outcome after first stroke varies significantly across Europe. This study was designed to compare motor and functional recovery after stroke between four European rehabilitation centers.

Methods— Consecutive stroke patients (532 patients) were recruited. They were assessed on admission and at 2, 4, and 6 months after stroke with the Barthel Index, Rivermead Motor Assessment of Gross Function, Rivermead Motor Assessment of Leg/Trunk, Rivermead Motor Assessment of Arm, and Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (except on admission). Data were analyzed using random effects ordinal logistic models adjusting for case-mix and multiple testing.

Results— Patients in the UK center were more likely to stay in lower Rivermead Motor Assessment of Gross Function classes compared with patients in the German center ({Delta}OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.3). In the Swiss center, patients were less likely to stay in lower Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living classes compared with patients in the UK center ({Delta}OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9). The latter were less likely to stay in lower Barthel Index classes compared with the patients in the German center ({Delta}OR, 0.6; 95%CI, 0.4 to 0.8). Recovery patterns of Rivermead Motor Assessment of Leg/Trunk and Rivermead Motor Assessment of Arm were not significantly different between centers.

Conclusions— Gross motor and functional recovery were better in the German and Swiss centers compared with the UK center, respectively. Personal self-care recovery was better in the UK compared with the German center. Previous studies in the same centers indicated that German and Swiss patients received more therapy per day. This was not the result of more staff but of a more efficient use of human resources. This study indicates potential for improving rehabilitation outcomes in the UK and Belgian centers.


Key Words: recovery • rehabilitation centers • stroke


Related Article:

Motor and Functional Recovery After Stroke: A Comparison Between 4 European Rehabilitation Centers
Tobias Brandt
Stroke 2007 38: 2030-2031. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
S. F Tyson, L. Connell, M. Busse, and S. Lennon
What do acute stroke physiotherapists do to treat postural control and mobility? An exploration of the content of therapy in the UK
Clinical Rehabilitation, November 1, 2009; 23(11): 1051 - 1055.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
E. Britton, N. Harris, and A. Turton
An exploratory randomized controlled trial of assisted practice for improving sit-to-stand in stroke patients in the hospital setting
Clinical Rehabilitation, May 1, 2008; 22(5): 458 - 468.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
StrokeHome page
T. Brandt
Motor and Functional Recovery After Stroke: A Comparison Between 4 European Rehabilitation Centers
Stroke, July 1, 2007; 38(7): 2030 - 2031.
[Full Text] [PDF]