This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

—Vladimir Hachinski, MD, FRCPC

Arch Neurol. 1989;46(6):703.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Few areas in neurology are in greater need of critical examination than stroke rehabilitation. A prevalence of 600 per 100 000 population¹ makes stroke a leading cause of serious disability, and yet, Isaacs'² lament has not been redressed: "Experts in stroke rehabilitation abound, but none of them has ever proven anything about rehabilitation to the satisfaction of anybody else." The main problem stems from the dearth of methodologically sound studies, a point on which all contributors to this controversy agree.

Reding and McDowell postulate a randomized study to assess the overall benefit of stroke rehabilitation programs, in which half the patients would receive rehabilitation and half would not, and in which the outcome measures would be (1) the final level of functional outcome, (2) the time required to reach the outcome goal, and (3) the number of patients discharged to home vs institutional care. They maintain that such . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?