This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background. One of the strongest modifiable determinants of rehabilitation outcome is exercise dose. Technologies enabling self-directed exercise offer a pragmatic means to increase dose, but the extent to which they achieve this in unselected cohorts, under real-world constraints, is poorly understood. Objective. Here we quantify the exercise dose achieved by inpatient stroke survivors using an adapted upper limb (UL) exercise gaming (exergaming) device and compare this with conventional (supervised) therapy. Methods. Over 4 months, patients presenting with acute stroke and associated UL impairment were screened at a single stroke centre. Participants were trained in a single session and provided with the device for unsupervised use during their inpatient admission. Results. From 75 patients referred for inpatient UL therapy, we recruited 30 (40%), of whom 26 (35%) were able to use the device meaningfully with their affected UL. Over a median enrolment time of 8 days (IQR: 5–14), self-directed UL exercise duration using the device was 26 minutes per day (median; IQR: 16–31), in addition to 25 minutes daily conventional UL therapy (IQR: 12–34; same cohort plus standard care audit; joint n = 50); thereby doubling total exercise duration (51 minutes; IQR: 32–64) relative to standard care (Z = 4.0, P <.001). The device enabled 104 UL repetitions per day (IQR: 38–393), whereas conventional therapy achieved 15 UL repetitions per day (IQR: 11–23; Z = 4.3, P <.001). Conclusion. Self-directed adapted exergaming enabled participants in our stroke inpatient cohort to increase exercise duration 2-fold, and repetitions 8-fold, compared to standard care, without requiring additional professional supervision.

Our objective was to generate a prognostic classification method for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) from a prognostic model built using clinical variables from a population register. We carried out a retrospective multivariate analysis of 713 patients with ALS over a 20-year period from the South-East England Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (SEALS) population register. Patients were randomly allocated to 'discovery' or 'test' cohorts. A prognostic score was calculated using the discovery cohort and then used to predict survival in the test cohort. The score was used as a predictor variable to split the test cohort in four prognostic categories (good, moderate, average, poor). The accuracy of the score in predicting survival was tested by checking whether the predicted survival fell within the actual survival tertile which that patient was in. A prognostic score generated from one cohort of patients predicted survival for a second cohort of patients (r(2) = 0.72). Six variables were included in the survival model: age at onset, diagnostic delay, El Escorial category, use of riluzole, gender and site of onset. Cox regression demonstrated a strong relationship between these variables and survival (χ(2) 80.8, df 1, p < 0.0001, n = 343) in the test cohort. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a significant difference in survival between clinical categories (log rank 161.932, df 3, p < 0.001), and the prognostic score generated for the test cohort accurately predicted survival in 64% of the patients. In conclusion, it is possible to correctly classify patients into prognostic categories using clinical data easily available at time of diagnosis.

Objectives To generate a prognostic classification method for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) from a prognostic model built using clinical variables from a population register. Materials and Methods We carried out a retrospective multivariate analysis of 713 patients with ALS over a 20 year period from the South-East England Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (SEALS) population register. Patients were randomly allocated to ‘discovery’ or ‘test’ cohorts. A prognostic score was calculated using the discovery cohort and then used to predict survival in the test cohort. This score was used as a predictor variable in subsequent survival analyses, either as a raw value for a Cox regression or split into four prognostic categories (good, moderate, average, poor). Results A prognostic score generated from one cohort of patients predicted survival for a second cohort of patients (r2=0.72). Six variables were included in the survival model: age at onset, diagnostic delay, El Escorial category, use of riluzole, gender and site of onset. Cox regression demonstrated a strong relationship between these variables and survival (χ2 80.8, df 1, p<0.0001, n=343) in the test cohort. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a significant difference in survival between clinical categories (log rank 161.932, df 3, p<0.001). Conclusion It is possible to correctly classify patients into prognostic categories using clinical data easily available at time of diagnosis.