ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: Test-retest reliability analysis in individuals with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of neurophysiological metrics acquired with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in individuals with chronic incomplete tetraplegia. SETTING: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. METHODS: TMS metrics of corticospinal excitability, output, inhibition and motor map distribution were collected in muscles with a higher MRC grade and muscles with a lower MRC grade on the more affected side of the body. Metrics denoting upper limb function were also collected. All metrics were collected at two sessions separated by a minimum of two weeks. Reliability between sessions was determined using Spearman's correlation coefficients and concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). RESULTS: We found that TMS metrics that were acquired in higher MRC grade muscles were approximately two times more reliable than those collected in lower MRC grade muscles. TMS metrics of motor map output, however, demonstrated poor reliability regardless of muscle choice (P=0.34; CCC=0.51). Correlation analysis indicated that patients with more baseline impairment and/or those in a more chronic phase of iSCI demonstrated greater variability of metrics. CONCLUSION: In iSCI, reliability of TMS metrics varies depending on the muscle grade of the tested muscle. Variability is also influenced by factors such as baseline motor function and time post SCI. Future studies that use TMS metrics in longitudinal study designs to understand functional recovery should be cautious as choice of muscle and clinical characteristics can influence reliability.
Subject(s)
Evoked Potentials, Motor/physiology , Spinal Cord Injuries/physiopathology , Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation , Aged , Brain Mapping , Chronic Disease , Electromyography , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Muscle, Skeletal/physiopathology , Pyramidal Tracts/physiopathology , Reaction Time/physiology , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
A great challenge facing stroke rehabilitation is the lack of information on how to derive targeted therapies. As such, techniques once considered promising, such as brain stimulation, have demonstrated mixed efficacy across heterogeneous samples in clinical studies. Here, we explain reasons, citing its one-type-suits-all approach as the primary cause of variable efficacy. We present evidence supporting the role of alternate substrates, which can be targeted instead in patients with greater damage and deficit. Building on this groundwork, this review will also discuss different frameworks on how to tailor brain stimulation therapies. To the best of our knowledge, our report is the first instance that enumerates and compares across theoretical models from upper limb recovery and conditions like aphasia and depression. Here, we explain how different models capture heterogeneity across patients and how they can be used to predict which patients would best respond to what treatments to develop targeted, individualized brain stimulation therapies. Our intent is to weigh pros and cons of testing each type of model so brain stimulation is successfully tailored to maximize upper limb recovery in stroke.
