Oral Presentation Australian and New Zealand Stroke Organisation Conference 2026

5 years in review: A systematic synthesis of stroke recovery and rehabilitation motor research (138762)

Emily J Dalton 1 2 , Natalie Fini 1 , Gert Kwakkel 3 , Catherine E Lang 4 , Natasha Lannin 5 6 , Kate Hayward 1 7
  1. Physiotherapy, University of Melbourne, Parkville
  2. Occupational Therapy, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville
  3. Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam
  4. Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St.Louis
  5. Neurosciences, Monash University, Clayton
  6. Allied Health, Bayside Health (Alfred Care Group), Melbourne
  7. Melbourne Brain Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville

Background/Aims: To identify recent advances in motor recovery and rehabilitation post-stroke, and to define recommendations for future trials.

Methods: A systematic search of PubMed was completed from 2020. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) completed or ongoing with n≥100 participants and systematic reviews of RCTs with meta-analyses. Identified records were synthesised to inform the development of themes, and inform recommendations to advance future stroke recovery trials.

Results: One hundred and twelve studies were identified: 46 RCTs, 27 RCTs protocols, and 39 systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Four themes were defined: (1) Motor training provides the foundation; (2) Mode is a tool to support the delivery of motor training; (3) Motor training may be improved with adjuvants, and (4) Motor trials need a defined measurement strategy. Five recommendations to advance future trials were: (1) Deliver motor training that is evidence-informed; (2) Consider using delivery mode as a tool to support higher dose motor training; (3) Always pair adjuvants with evidence-informed motor training; (4) Select or subgroup participants enrolled in trials according to potentially modifying characteristics; and (5) Match measurement strategies to the research question, main effect of interest, trial phase, population tested, and intervention delivered.

Conclusions: It is clear that the field of stroke recovery does not need any more low-dose, underpowered, proof-of-concept trials in heterogeneous populations. A step forward would be to test evidence-informed bundles of care in subgroups to examine “who, what, when and how much”. Such trials would move beyond a single approach and facilitate enhanced clinician decision-making.