TY - JOUR
T1 - What the Proportional Recovery Rule Is (and Is Not)
T2 - Methodological and Statistical Considerations
AU - Kundert, Robinson
AU - Goldsmith, Jeff
AU - Veerbeek, Janne M.
AU - Krakauer, John W.
AU - Luft, Andreas R.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2019.
PY - 2019/11/1
Y1 - 2019/11/1
N2 - In 2008, it was proposed that the magnitude of recovery from nonsevere upper limb motor impairment over the first 3 to 6 months after stroke, measured with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), is approximately 0.7 times the initial impairment (“proportional recovery”). In contrast to patients with nonsevere hemiparesis, about 30% of patients with an initial severe paresis do not show such recovery (“nonrecoverers”). Hence it was suggested that the proportional recovery rule (PRR) was a manifestation of a spontaneous mechanism that is present in all patients with mild-to-moderate paresis but only in some with severe paresis. Since the introduction of the PRR, it has subsequently been applied to other motor and nonmotor impairments. This more general investigation of the PRR has led to inconsistencies in its formulation and application, making it difficult to draw conclusions across studies and precipitating some cogent criticism. Here, we conduct a detailed comparison of the different studies reporting proportional recovery and, where appropriate, critique statistical methodology. On balance, we conclude that existing data in aggregate are largely consistent with the PRR as a population-level model for upper limb motor recovery; recent reports of its demise are exaggerated, as these excessively focus on the less conclusive issue of individual subject-level predictions. Moving forward, we suggest that methodological caution and new analytical approaches will be needed to confirm (or refute) a systematic character to spontaneous recovery from motor and other poststroke impairments, which can be captured by a mathematical rule either at the population or at the subject level.
AB - In 2008, it was proposed that the magnitude of recovery from nonsevere upper limb motor impairment over the first 3 to 6 months after stroke, measured with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), is approximately 0.7 times the initial impairment (“proportional recovery”). In contrast to patients with nonsevere hemiparesis, about 30% of patients with an initial severe paresis do not show such recovery (“nonrecoverers”). Hence it was suggested that the proportional recovery rule (PRR) was a manifestation of a spontaneous mechanism that is present in all patients with mild-to-moderate paresis but only in some with severe paresis. Since the introduction of the PRR, it has subsequently been applied to other motor and nonmotor impairments. This more general investigation of the PRR has led to inconsistencies in its formulation and application, making it difficult to draw conclusions across studies and precipitating some cogent criticism. Here, we conduct a detailed comparison of the different studies reporting proportional recovery and, where appropriate, critique statistical methodology. On balance, we conclude that existing data in aggregate are largely consistent with the PRR as a population-level model for upper limb motor recovery; recent reports of its demise are exaggerated, as these excessively focus on the less conclusive issue of individual subject-level predictions. Moving forward, we suggest that methodological caution and new analytical approaches will be needed to confirm (or refute) a systematic character to spontaneous recovery from motor and other poststroke impairments, which can be captured by a mathematical rule either at the population or at the subject level.
KW - methods
KW - proportional recovery
KW - recovery
KW - rehabilitation
KW - statistics
KW - stroke
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073954666&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073954666&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1545968319872996
DO - 10.1177/1545968319872996
M3 - Article
C2 - 31524062
AN - SCOPUS:85073954666
SN - 1545-9683
VL - 33
SP - 876
EP - 887
JO - Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
JF - Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
IS - 11
ER -