Acute StrokeNCT02079779
Efficacy Study of an Interactive Robot for the Rehabilitation of the Upper Limb in Acute Stroke Patients
A study testing Robotic-assisted therapy and Classical therapy in people with Acute Stroke, run by Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de Louvain at 3 sites in Belgium.
Trial summary
Stroke is the principal cause of permanent disability within the investigators population. This incapacity justifies an intensive and prolonged multidisciplinary rehabilitation, which can be optimized by robotics. The investigators team has developed a robot designed to rehabilitate the upper limb. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 90 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Acute Stroke
- What is being tested?
- Robotic-assisted therapy and Classical therapy
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 45 participants
- Where
- 3 sitesBelgium
- Study dates
- 9 Jan 2015to 2 Oct 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 90 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- first stroke
- acute stroke (less than 1 month)
- unilateral localisation of the stroke
- moderate to severe upper limb impairments (7<Fugl Meyer score<50/66)
Who cannot join
- brainstem or cerebellum stroke
- an unstable clinical condition contraindicating the upper limb rehabilitation treatments
- cognitive disorders preventing the understanding of the instructions
- other neurological or orthopedic pathology affecting the upper limb
Trial locations and contacts
3 sites in 1 country.
Belgium3 sites
Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc
Brussels, 1200
Centre Hospitalier Valida
Brussels
Centre Neurologique William Lennox
Ottignies, 1340
About this study
Official title: Study of the Effectiveness of an Interactive Robot for the Rehabilitation of the Upper Limb in Acute Stroke Patients by Evaluating the 3 Fields of the ICF: a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Simple Blind Study
Stroke is the principal cause of permanent disability within the investigators population. This incapacity justifies an intensive and prolonged multidisciplinary rehabilitation, which can be optimized by robotics.
The investigators team has developed a robot designed to rehabilitate the upper limb. This robot allows the patient to perform active, passive, or assisted exercises. The system is also able to assess movement quality and to provide a feedback to the patient and the therapist via a graphical interface. This therapy is designed to improve functional recovery of patients, and then their quality of life.
Read more
Few quality studies have evaluated the efficacy of robotic assisted therapy in patients at the acute stage of rehabilitation (< 3 months post stroke) when most improvements are observed.
Thus, the aim of this study was to objectify the effectiveness of robotic-assisted rehabilitation in the acute stage after stroke by evaluating the 3 fields of the ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) and performing a prospective multicenter randomized controlled single blind trial. In this study, 60 stroke patients will be recruited and randomized into two groups. All patients will receive a similar classical rehabilitation as a basis. Patients of the control and experimental groups will receive a supplement of classical rehabilitation and robotic-assisted therapy, respectively.
Read the detailed description
INTRODUCTION
The cerebral vascular accident affects two people per thousand each year (Duncan et al. 2005). This injury is the leading cause of permanent disability in our population. The brain damage is expressed by different neurological impairments and functional disabilities. These disabilities justify intensive and sustained multidisciplinary rehabilitation to reduce neurological impairments, to improve the activities and participation of patients, and, ultimately, their quality of life (Duncan et al., 2005).
Recently appeared in rehabilitation to stimulate maximum brain plasticity robotic devices meet the actual recommendations existing in stroke's rehabilitation (Langhorne et al., 2011). Indeed, the robots allow the execution of a large number of movements whose quality is controlled. A visual interface gives the patient a feedback of its movements, and offers exercises oriented functional tasks that have meaning for him and the possibly dive into a virtual reality. All these elements justify the clinical development of robots to assist the therapists (Pignolo et al. 2009).
The therapeutic efficacy of these robots for the rehabilitation of the upper limb was evaluated especially in chronic stroke patients (> 6 months after stroke) (Mehrholz et al., 2012). Unfortunately, few quality studies was conducted in these patients at the acute stage of rehabilitation, during which the potential of brain plasticity is the most important and the largest functional progress are observed (Stinear et al. 2012). In addition, few studies have evaluated the effect of these therapies robotic on the three fields of the ICF (Mehrholz et al., 2012). Many studies focus on impairments (e.g. muscle strength) without assessing the functional ability of the patient in activities of daily living.
OBJECTIVES
To perform a multicenter, single blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the efficacy of of robotic-assisted therapy in acute stroke patients by evaluating the three fields of the ICF.
METHODS
Patients will be included in the Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (Brussels, Belgique) and the center of William Lennox (Ottignies, Belgique). The patients will be randomised into two groups (control and experimental), using a stratified randomization method to ensure the equivalence of the two groups for motor neurological impairments (score of the Fugl-Meyer). This randomization will be organized independently in each centre participating in the study. The study of statistical power shows that 27 patients per group are necessary. This study of power has taken into account a statistical power desired to 99%, a minimum detectable change to 0.09 and a standard deviation of 0.08 on the upper limb kinematics of the patient (Gilliaux et al. 2014). In estimating a risk of out drop to 10%, the investigators plan to recruit 60 patients.
In each centre, in the acute phase, the patients receive daily a multidisciplinary rehabilitation (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy,...) more or less intensive (60 to 300 min). In the experimental group, one of these daily therapies will be devoted to the rehabilitation robot, 4 times a week for 9 weeks. The control group will benefit from conventional treatments. As such, the duration of support will be similar between the two groups. All treatments will be administered by therapists specialized in neurological rehabilitation.
Patients will be evaluated three times in the study: before the start of treatments, at the end of treatments, and 6 months after the stroke event. All assessments will be carried out by a therapist which will be not informed the group that the patient is assigned (single-blind).
PERSPECTIVES
From this study, the investigators hope to demonstrate the efficacy of robotic-assisted therapy in acute stroke patients by evaluating the three fields of the ICF. These results could prove that this tool can be a significant complement for the stroke rehabilitation.
- Conditions
- Acute Stroke
- Being tested
- Robotic-assisted therapy, Classical therapy
- Keywords
- Robotic-assisted therapy, Acute Stroke, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Robotic-assisted therapyOther
The robotic device is designed to intensively rehabilitate the upper limb. Indeed, this robot allows the patient to perform a lot of active, passive, or assisted exercises. The level of assistance is determined and provided by the robot in function of the patient performance (i.e. quality of movements).
Classical therapyOther
Conventional therapy will be performed by therapists specialized in neuro-rehabilitation
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Robotic-assisted therapy | Experimental | All patients will receive a similar classical rehabilitation as a basis. The 30 patients of this group will receive a supplement of robotic-assisted therapy. Receives: Other: Robotic-assisted therapy; Other: Classical therapy |
| Classical therapy | Active comparator | All patients will receive a similar classical rehabilitation as a basis. The 30 patients of this group will receive a supplement of classical rehabilitation. Receives: Other: Classical therapy |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Kinematic
Measured: Change from Baseline in Kinematic at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Secondary outcomes (10)
Fugl-Meyer upper limb assessment
Measured: Change from Baseline in upper limb motor control at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Stroke Impairment Assessment Set (sensitive and Pain items)
Measured: Change from Baseline in sensitivity and pain at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Box and Block test
Measured: Change from Baseline in manual ability at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Strenght test of the Medical Research council
Measured: Change from Baseline in upper limb strenght at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Ashworth test
Measured: Change from Baseline in upper limb spasticity at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Bell's test
Measured: Change from Baseline in Hemineglect at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Wolf Motor Function Test
Measured: Change from Baseline in activity of daily living at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Abilhand
Measured: Change from Baseline in activity of daily living at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Activlim
Measured: Change from Baseline in activity of daily living at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Stroke Impact Scale (Participation item)
Measured: Change from Baseline in participation in social activities at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Mar 2014 (estimated)
- Study start9 Jan 2015
- Primary completion9 Jan 2015
- Study completion2 Oct 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Acute StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de LouvainThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 45 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Maxime Gilliaux, PhD student, Principal investigator, Université Catholique de LouvainGaetan Stoquart, Professor, Principal investigator, Université Catholique de LouvainChristine Detrembleur, Professor, Principal investigator, Université Catholique de Louvain
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02079779
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IONS-Gilliaux-02
- Status last verified
- Aug 2018
- First submitted
- 4 Mar 2014
- Last updated
- 24 Aug 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Duncan PW, Zorowitz R, Bates B, Choi JY, Glasberg JJ, Graham GD, Katz RC, Lamberty K, Reker D. Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care: a clinical practice guideline. Stroke. 2005 Sep;36(9):e100-43. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000180861.54180.FF. No abstract available.
PubMed 16120836Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011 May 14;377(9778):1693-702. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5.
PubMed 21571152Mehrholz J, Hadrich A, Platz T, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD006876. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub3.
PubMed 22696362Pignolo L. Robotics in neuro-rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2009 Nov;41(12):955-60. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0434.
PubMed 19841823Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe M, Anwar S, Byblow WD. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain. 2012 Aug;135(Pt 8):2527-35. doi: 10.1093/brain/aws146. Epub 2012 Jun 10.
PubMed 22689909Gilliaux M, Lejeune TM, Detrembleur C, Sapin J, Dehez B, Selves C, Stoquart G. Using the robotic device REAplan as a valid, reliable, and sensitive tool to quantify upper limb impairments in stroke patients. J Rehabil Med. 2014 Feb;46(2):117-25. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1245.
PubMed 24213596
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Aug 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Study of the Effectiveness of an Interactive Robot for the Rehabilitation of the Upper Limb in Acute Stroke Patients by Evaluating the 3 Fields of the ICF: a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Simple Blind Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02079779
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IONS-Gilliaux-02
- Conditions
- Acute Stroke
- Keywords
- Robotic-assisted therapy, Acute Stroke, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 45 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de LouvainUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 9 Jan 2015 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 9 Jan 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- 2 Oct 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Mar 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Stroke is the principal cause of permanent disability within the investigators population. This incapacity justifies an intensive and prolonged multidisciplinary rehabilitation, which can be optimized by robotics.
The investigators team has developed a robot designed to rehabilitate the upper limb. This robot allows the patient to perform active, passive, or assisted exercises. The system is also able to assess movement quality and to provide a feedback to the patient and the therapist via a graphical interface. This therapy is designed to improve functional recovery of patients, and then their quality of life.
Few quality studies have evaluated the efficacy of robotic assisted therapy in patients at the acute stage of rehabilitation (< 3 months post stroke) when most improvements are observed.
Thus, the aim of this study was to objectify the effectiveness of robotic-assisted rehabilitation in the acute stage after stroke by evaluating the 3 fields of the ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) and performing a prospective multicenter randomized controlled single blind trial. In this study, 60 stroke patients will be recruited and randomized into two groups. All patients will receive a similar classical rehabilitation as a basis. Patients of the control and experimental groups will receive a supplement of classical rehabilitation and robotic-assisted therapy, respectively.
Detailed description
INTRODUCTION
The cerebral vascular accident affects two people per thousand each year (Duncan et al. 2005). This injury is the leading cause of permanent disability in our population. The brain damage is expressed by different neurological impairments and functional disabilities. These disabilities justify intensive and sustained multidisciplinary rehabilitation to reduce neurological impairments, to improve the activities and participation of patients, and, ultimately, their quality of life (Duncan et al., 2005).
Recently appeared in rehabilitation to stimulate maximum brain plasticity robotic devices meet the actual recommendations existing in stroke's rehabilitation (Langhorne et al., 2011). Indeed, the robots allow the execution of a large number of movements whose quality is controlled. A visual interface gives the patient a feedback of its movements, and offers exercises oriented functional tasks that have meaning for him and the possibly dive into a virtual reality. All these elements justify the clinical development of robots to assist the therapists (Pignolo et al. 2009).
The therapeutic efficacy of these robots for the rehabilitation of the upper limb was evaluated especially in chronic stroke patients (> 6 months after stroke) (Mehrholz et al., 2012). Unfortunately, few quality studies was conducted in these patients at the acute stage of rehabilitation, during which the potential of brain plasticity is the most important and the largest functional progress are observed (Stinear et al. 2012). In addition, few studies have evaluated the effect of these therapies robotic on the three fields of the ICF (Mehrholz et al., 2012). Many studies focus on impairments (e.g. muscle strength) without assessing the functional ability of the patient in activities of daily living.
OBJECTIVES
To perform a multicenter, single blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the efficacy of of robotic-assisted therapy in acute stroke patients by evaluating the three fields of the ICF.
METHODS
Patients will be included in the Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc (Brussels, Belgique) and the center of William Lennox (Ottignies, Belgique). The patients will be randomised into two groups (control and experimental), using a stratified randomization method to ensure the equivalence of the two groups for motor neurological impairments (score of the Fugl-Meyer). This randomization will be organized independently in each centre participating in the study. The study of statistical power shows that 27 patients per group are necessary. This study of power has taken into account a statistical power desired to 99%, a minimum detectable change to 0.09 and a standard deviation of 0.08 on the upper limb kinematics of the patient (Gilliaux et al. 2014). In estimating a risk of out drop to 10%, the investigators plan to recruit 60 patients.
In each centre, in the acute phase, the patients receive daily a multidisciplinary rehabilitation (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy,...) more or less intensive (60 to 300 min). In the experimental group, one of these daily therapies will be devoted to the rehabilitation robot, 4 times a week for 9 weeks. The control group will benefit from conventional treatments. As such, the duration of support will be similar between the two groups. All treatments will be administered by therapists specialized in neurological rehabilitation.
Patients will be evaluated three times in the study: before the start of treatments, at the end of treatments, and 6 months after the stroke event. All assessments will be carried out by a therapist which will be not informed the group that the patient is assigned (single-blind).
PERSPECTIVES
From this study, the investigators hope to demonstrate the efficacy of robotic-assisted therapy in acute stroke patients by evaluating the three fields of the ICF. These results could prove that this tool can be a significant complement for the stroke rehabilitation.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Robotic-assisted therapy | Experimental | Other: Robotic-assisted therapy, Other: Classical therapyAll patients will receive a similar classical rehabilitation as a basis. The 30 patients of this group will receive a supplement of robotic-assisted therapy. |
| Classical therapy | Active comparator | Other: Classical therapyAll patients will receive a similar classical rehabilitation as a basis. The 30 patients of this group will receive a supplement of classical rehabilitation. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 90 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- first stroke
- acute stroke (less than 1 month)
- unilateral localisation of the stroke
- moderate to severe upper limb impairments (7<Fugl Meyer score<50/66)
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- brainstem or cerebellum stroke
- an unstable clinical condition contraindicating the upper limb rehabilitation treatments
- cognitive disorders preventing the understanding of the instructions
- other neurological or orthopedic pathology affecting the upper limb
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Robotic-assisted therapyThe robotic device is designed to intensively rehabilitate the upper limb. Indeed, this robot allows the patient to perform a lot of active, passive, or assisted exercises. The level of assistance is determined and provided by the robot in function of the patient performance (i.e. quality of movements). | Other | Robotic-assisted therapy |
| Classical therapyConventional therapy will be performed by therapists specialized in neuro-rehabilitation | Other | Classical therapy, Robotic-assisted therapy |
Primary outcome
Kinematic
Time frame: Change from Baseline in Kinematic at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
10 secondary outcomes
Fugl-Meyer upper limb assessment
Time frame: Change from Baseline in upper limb motor control at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Stroke Impairment Assessment Set (sensitive and Pain items)
Time frame: Change from Baseline in sensitivity and pain at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Box and Block test
Time frame: Change from Baseline in manual ability at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Strenght test of the Medical Research council
Time frame: Change from Baseline in upper limb strenght at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Ashworth test
Time frame: Change from Baseline in upper limb spasticity at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Bell's test
Time frame: Change from Baseline in Hemineglect at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Wolf Motor Function Test
Time frame: Change from Baseline in activity of daily living at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Abilhand
Time frame: Change from Baseline in activity of daily living at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Activlim
Time frame: Change from Baseline in activity of daily living at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Stroke Impact Scale (Participation item)
Time frame: Change from Baseline in participation in social activities at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Aug 2018.
- Background: PubMed 16120836Duncan PW, Zorowitz R, Bates B, Choi JY, Glasberg JJ, Graham GD, Katz RC, Lamberty K, Reker D. Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care: a clinical practice guideline. Stroke. 2005 Sep;36(9):e100-43. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000180861.54180.FF. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 21571152Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011 May 14;377(9778):1693-702. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5.
- Background: PubMed 22696362Mehrholz J, Hadrich A, Platz T, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD006876. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub3.
- Background: PubMed 19841823Pignolo L. Robotics in neuro-rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2009 Nov;41(12):955-60. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0434.
- Background: PubMed 22689909Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe M, Anwar S, Byblow WD. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain. 2012 Aug;135(Pt 8):2527-35. doi: 10.1093/brain/aws146. Epub 2012 Jun 10.
- Background: PubMed 24213596Gilliaux M, Lejeune TM, Detrembleur C, Sapin J, Dehez B, Selves C, Stoquart G. Using the robotic device REAplan as a valid, reliable, and sensitive tool to quantify upper limb impairments in stroke patients. J Rehabil Med. 2014 Feb;46(2):117-25. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1245.
Related trials for Acute Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Temporal Interference Stimulation for Upper-Limb Motor Recovery in Early Subacute Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
ELATE Study: Evaluating Large-vessel Acute Thrombectomy in Extended Time Window
Acute Ichemic Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Selective Intra-Arterial Hypothermia After Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Basilar Artery Occlusion
RecruitingObservational study
Continuous Dual Aspiration Technique With Zoom System for Stroke
Ischemic Stroke, Acute Stroke
Not yet recruitingPhase 2/3
A Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized, Non-inferiority Clinical Trial With Blinded Endpoint Assessment of Early Tirofiban After Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Maxime Gilliaux, PhD student principal investigator
Université Catholique de Louvain
Gaetan Stoquart, Professor principal investigator
Université Catholique de Louvain
Christine Detrembleur, Professor principal investigator
Université Catholique de Louvain
3 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Robotic-assisted therapy and Classical therapy in people with Acute Stroke, run by Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de Louvain at 3 sites in Belgium.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Aug 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 3 sites in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Kinematic (time frame: Change from Baseline in Kinematic at an expected average of 2 months (after the treamtment) and 6 months post stroke). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02079779, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Aug 2018.