Five Features to Look for in Early-Phase Clinical Intervention Studies

Abstract

Neurorehabilitation relies on core principles of neuroplasticity to activate and engage latent neural connections, promote detour circuits, and reverse impairments. Clinical interventions incorporating these principles have been shown to promote recovery and demote compensation. However, many clinicians struggle to find interventions centered on these principles in our nascent, rapidly growing body of literature. Not to mention the immense pressure from regulatory bodies and organizational balance sheets that further discourage time-intensive recovery-promoting interventions, incentivizing clinicians to prioritize practical constraints over sound clinical decision making. Modern neurorehabilitation practices that result from these pressures favor strategies that encourage compensation over those that promote recovery. To narrow the gap between the busy clinician and the cutting-edge motor recovery literature, we distilled 5 features found in early-phase clinical intervention studies—ones that value the more enduring biological recovery processes over the more immediate compensatory remedies. Filtering emerging literature through this lens and routinely integrating promising research into daily practice can break down practical barriers for effective clinical translation and ultimately promote durable long-term outcomes. This perspective is meant to serve a new generation of mechanistically minded and caring clinicians, students, activists, and research trainees, who are poised to not only advance rehabilitation science, but also erect evidence-based policy changes to accelerate recovery-based stroke care.