Looking in the Rear View Mirror When Conversing with Back Seat Drivers: The EXCITE Trial Revisited

¹ Emory University School of Medicine, Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, and Atlanta VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Center
² Department Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, Department Neurology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
³ Department of Rehabilitation Medicine Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
⁴ School of Nursing, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
⁵ School of Allied Medical Professions, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: swolf{at}emory.edu.

	Abstract

The initial Point of View: Directions for Research (Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 2007;21:3-13) identified confounders that might limit the impact that rehabilitation multicenter clinical trials may have upon altering practice patterns. Part of that viewpoint addressed the Extremity Constraint Induced Therapy Evaluation (EXCITE) Trial and highlighted some of its perceived strengths and limitations. The present Point of View expands upon factors worthy of consideration in planning and executing clinical trials in neurorehabilitation based upon experiences encountered by the EXCITE team. Cost factors and patient attributes, both of which profoundly influence the ability of clinical researchers to execute the ideal study, are among these factors. In particular, the costs associated with large trials necessitate compromise in study design or implementation, resulting in a dichotomy between what should be undertaken and what can be accomplished.

First published on July 20, 2007, doi:10.1177/1545968307306238

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2007;21:379.

A more recent version of this article appeared on October 1, 2007


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. L. Wolf On "Effects of forced use on arm function in the subacute phase..." Hammer AM, Lindmark B. Phys Ther. 2009;89:526-539. Physical Therapy, September 1, 2009; 89(9): 993 - 995. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Bogard, S. Wolf, Qin Zhang, P. Thompson, D. Morris, and D. Nichols-Larsen Can the Wolf Motor Function Test be Streamlined? Neurorehabil Neural Repair, June 1, 2009; 23(5): 422 - 428. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K.-c. Lin, Y.-h. Huang, Y.-w. Hsieh, and C.-y. Wu Potential Predictors of Motor and Functional Outcomes After Distributed Constraint-Induced Therapy for Patients With Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, May 1, 2009; 23(4): 336 - 342. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. H. Dobkin Progressive Staging of Pilot Studies to Improve Phase III Trials for Motor Interventions Neurorehabil Neural Repair, March 1, 2009; 23(3): 197 - 206. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Fujiwara, Y. Kasashima, K. Honaga, Y. Muraoka, T. Tsuji, R. Osu, K. Hase, Y. Masakado, and M. Liu Motor Improvement and Corticospinal Modulation Induced by Hybrid Assistive Neuromuscular Dynamic Stimulation (HANDS) Therapy in Patients With Chronic Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, February 1, 2009; 23(2): 125 - 132. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. L. Woodbury, D. R. Howland, T. E. McGuirk, S. B. Davis, C. R. Senesac, S. Kautz, and L. G. Richards Effects of Trunk Restraint Combined With Intensive Task Practice on Poststroke Upper Extremity Reach and Function: A Pilot Study Neurorehabil Neural Repair, January 1, 2009; 23(1): 78 - 91. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. A. Thrasher, V. Zivanovic, W. McIlroy, and M. R. Popovic Rehabilitation of Reaching and Grasping Function in Severe Hemiplegic Patients Using Functional Electrical Stimulation Therapy Neurorehabil Neural Repair, November 1, 2008; 22(6): 706 - 714. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. L Wolf On "Modified constraint-induced therapy..." Page et al. Phys Ther. 2008;88:333-340. Physical Therapy, May 1, 2008; 88(5): 680 - 684. [Full Text] [PDF]