The Modified Ashworth Scale yielded reliable measurements in the lower limb for a single examiner, and agreement was best on the grade of 0. The reliability between examiners was not good, which may bring into question the validity of measurements obtained with the scale.

Transcranial direct current stimulation has been gaining increasing interest as a potential therapeutic treatment in stroke recovery. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to collate the available evidence in adults with residual motor impairments as a result of stroke. The primary outcome was change in motor function or impairment as a result of transcranial direct current stimulation, using any reported electrode montage, with or without adjunct physical therapy. The search yielded 15 relevant studies comprising 315 subjects. Compared with sham, cortical stimulation did not produce statistically significant improvements in motor performance when measured immediately after the intervention (anodal stimulation: facilitation of the affected cortex: standardized mean difference = 0.05, P = 0.71; cathodal stimulation: inhibition of the nonaffected cortex: standardized mean difference = 0.39, P = 0.08; bihemispheric stimulation: standardized mean difference = 0.24, P = 0.39). When the data were analyzed according to stroke characteristics, statistically significant improvements were evident for those with chronic stroke (standardized mean difference = 0.45, P = 0.01) and subjects with mild-to-moderate stroke impairments (standardized mean difference = 0.37, P = 0.02). Transcranial direct current stimulation is likely to be effective in enhancing motor performance in the short term when applied selectively to patients with stroke. Given the range of stimulation variables and heterogeneous nature of stroke, this modality is still experimental and further research is required to determine its clinical merit in stroke rehabilitation.

These results indicate incidences of falls during turning following stroke may not be due to impaired movement patterns but due to the many other factors that are associated with falls, such as deficits in cognitive processes--attention or central integration--and/or sensory deficits.

Objective This study examined the feasibility of a parallel‐group assessor‐blinded randomized controlled trial investigating whether task‐specific training preceded by aerobic exercise (AEX + TST) improves upper limb function more than task‐specific training (TST) alone. Methods People with upper limb motor dysfunction after stroke were allocated to TST or AEX + TST. Both groups were prescribed 60 hr of TST over 10 weeks (3 × 1‐hr sessions with a therapist per week and 3 × 1 hr of home‐based self‐practice per week). The AEX + TST group performed 30 minutes of aerobic exercise immediately prior to the 1 hr of TST with the therapist. Recruitment, adherence, retention, participant acceptability, and adverse events were recorded. Clinical measures were performed prerandomization at baseline, on completion of the intervention, and at 1‐ and 6‐month follow‐up. Results Fifty‐nine persons after stroke were screened, 42 met the eligibility criteria, and 20 (11 male; mean [SD] age: 55.4 [16.0] years; time since stroke: 71.7 [91.2] months) were recruited over 17 months. The mean Wolf Motor Function Test Functional Ability Score at baseline was 27.4 (max = 75) and the mean Action Research Arm Test score was 11.2 (max = 57). Nine were randomized to AEX + TST and 11 to TST. There were no adverse events, but there was one drop out. Retention at 1‐ and 6‐month follow‐up was 80% and 85%, respectively. Attendance was 93% (6) for the AEX + TST group, and 89% (9) for the TST group. AEX + TST was perceived as acceptable (100%) and beneficial (87.5%). Exertional fatigue (visual analogue scale) prior to TST was worse in the AEX + TST group (3.5 [0.7] out of 10) than the TST group (1.7 [1.4] out of 10). The TST group performed 31% more repetitions per session than the AEX + TST group. Conclusion A subsequent Phase III study is feasible, but modifications to eligibility criteria, outcome measures, and intervention delivery are recommended.