Abstract
Background. Understanding potential sex differences in stroke recovery is important for prognosis, ensuring appropriate allocation of health care resources, and for stratification in research studies. Previously, functional measures have shown poorer outcomes for females, however, little is known about sex differences that may exist in specific motor and sensory impairments.
Objective. The aim of this study was to utilize robotic assessments of motor and sensory impairments to determine if there are sex differences at the impairment level in stroke recovery over the first 6 months poststroke.
Methods. We used robotic and clinical assessments of motor and sensory impairments at 1, 6, 12, and 26 weeks poststroke in 108 males and 52 females. Linear mixed models were used to examine the effect of sex on recovery poststroke, controlling for age and lesion volume.
Results. In general, we did not find significant sex differences across a range of assessments. The exception to this was a sex × age interaction for the Purdue Pegboard Assessment, where we found that females had better performance than males at younger ages (<62 years), but males had better performance at older ages.
Conclusions. While recruitment biases need to be acknowledged when generalizing our results to stroke recovery at-large, our results suggest that sex differences do not exist at the impairment level poststroke.
References
| 1. | Kim, ESH, Menon, V. Status of women in cardiovascular clinical trials. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2009;29:279-283. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 2. | Feldman, S, Ammar, W, Lo, K, Trepman, E, van Zuylen, M, Etzioni, O. Quantifying sex bias in clinical studies at scale with automated data extraction. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e196700. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 3. | Cordonnier, C, Sprigg, N, Sandset, EC, et al. Stroke in women—from evidence to inequalities. Nat Rev Neurol. 2017;13:521-532. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 4. | Franconi, F, Campesi, I, Colombo, D, Antonini, P. Sex-gender variable: methodological recommendations for increasing scientific value of clinical studies. Cells. 2019;8:476. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 5. | Kapral, MK, Fang, J, Hill, MD, et al. Sex differences in stroke care and outcomes: results from the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. Stroke. 2005;36:809-814. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 6. | Benjamin, EJ, Muntner, P, Alonso, A, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2019 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;139:e56-e528. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 7. | Seshadri, S, Beiser, A, Kelly-Hayes, M, et al. The lifetime risk of stroke: estimates from the Framingham Study. Stroke. 2006;37:345-350. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 8. | Choleris, E, Galea, LAM, Sohrabji, F, Frick, KM. Sex differences in the brain: implications for behavioral and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;85:126-145. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 9. | Ahnstedt, H, McCullough, LD, Cipolla, MJ. The importance of considering sex differences in translational stroke research. Transl Stroke Res. 2016;7:261-273. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 10. | Lisabeth, LD, Reeves, MJ, Baek, J, et al. Factors influencing sex differences in poststroke functional outcome. Stroke. 2015;46:860-863. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 11. | Phan, HT, Blizzard, CL, Reeves, MJ, et al. Factors contributing to sex differences in functional outcomes and participation after stroke. Neurology. 2018;90:e1945-e1953. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 12. | Petrea, RE, Beiser, AS, Seshadri, S, Kelly-Hayes, M, Kase, CS, Wolf, PA. Gender differences in stroke incidence and poststroke disability in the Framingham heart study. Stroke. 2009;40:1032-1037. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 13. | Shobha, N, Sylaja, PN, Kapral, MK, Fang, J, Hill, MD; Investigators of the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network . Differences in stroke outcome based on sex. Neurology. 2010;74:767-771. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 14. | Kent, DM, Price, LL, Ringleb, P, Hill, MD, Selker, HP. Sex-based differences in response to recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2005;36:62-65. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 15. | Hill, MD, Kent, DM, Hinchey, J, et al. Sex-based differences in the effect of intra-arterial treatment of stroke: analysis of the PROACT-2 study. Stroke. 2006;37:2322-2325. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 16. | Chalos, V, de Ridder, IR, Lingsma, HF, et al. Does sex modify the effect of endovascular treatment for ischemic stroke? Stroke. 2019;50:2413-2419. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 17. | Gall, SL, Donnan, G, Dewey, HM, et al. Sex differences in presentation, severity, and management of stroke in a population-based study. Neurology. 2010;74:975-981. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 18. | Reeves, MJ, Lisabeth, LD. The confounding issue of sex and stroke. Neurology. 2010;74:947-948. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 19. | Bushnell, CD, Chaturvedi, S, Gage, KR, et al. Sex differences in stroke: challenges and opportunities. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2018;38:2179-2191. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 20. | Vanbellingen, T, Kersten, B, Van Hemelrijk, B, et al. Comprehensive assessment of gesture production: a new test of upper limb apraxia (TULIA). Eur J Neurol. 2010;17:59-66. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 21. | Diedrichsen, J. A spatially unbiased atlas template of the human cerebellum. Neuroimage. 2006;33:127-138. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 22. | Dukelow, SP, Herter, TM, Moore, KD, et al. Quantitative assessment of limb position sense following stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:178-187. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 23. | Tyryshkin, K, Coderre, AM, Glasgow, JI, et al. A robotic object hitting task to quantify sensorimotor impairments in participants with stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:47. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 24. | Coderre, AM, Amr Abou Zeid, AA, Dukelow, SP, et al. Assessment of upper-limb sensorimotor function of subacute stroke patients using visually guided reaching. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:528-541. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 25. | Bourke, TC, Lowrey, CR, Dukelow, SP, Bagg, SD, Norman, KE, Scott, SH. A robot-based behavioural task to quantify impairments in rapid motor decisions and actions after stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016;13:91. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 26. | BKIN Technologies . Dexterit-E 3.6 User Guide. BKIN Technogies; 2016. Google Scholar |
| 27. | Gowland, C, Stratford, P, Ward, M, et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the chedoke-mcmaster stroke assessment. Stroke. 1993;24:58-63. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 28. | Barreca, SR, Stratford, PW, Lambert, CL, Masters, LM, Streiner, DL. Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the chedoke arm and hand activity inventory: a new measure of upper-limb function for survivors of stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1616-1622. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 29. | Tiffin, J, Asher, EJ. The Purdue pegboard; norms and studies of reliability and validity. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:234-247. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 30. | Nijland, RHM, van Wegen, EEH, Harmeling-van, der, Wel, BC, Kwakkel, G;, EPOS, Investigators. Presence of finger extension and shoulder abduction within 72 hours after stroke predicts functional recovery. Stroke. 2010;41:745-750. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 31. | Stinear, CM, Barber, PA, Petoe, M, Anwar, S, Byblow, WD. The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain. 2012;135 (pt 8):2527-2535. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 32. | Keith, RA, Granger, CV, Hamilton, BB, Sherwin, FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6-18. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 33. | Rorden, C, Bonilha, L, Fridriksson, J, Bender, B, Karnath, HO. Age-specific CT and MRI templates for spatial normalization. Neuroimage. 2012;61:957-965. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 34. | Andersson, J, Jenkinson, M, Smith, S. Non-linear registration, aka spatial normalisation. FMRIB technical report TR07JA2. Accessed June 2, 2020. https://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/datasets/techrep/tr07ja2/tr07ja2.pdf Google Scholar |
| 35. | Jenkinson, M, Bannister, P, Brady, M, Smith, S. Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images. Neuroimage. 2002;17:825-841. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 36. | Riley, JD, Le, V, Der-Yeghiaian, L, et al. Anatomy of stroke injury predicts gains from therapy. Stroke. 2011;42: 421-426. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 37. | Yu, C, Zhu, C, Zhang, Y, et al. A longitudinal diffusion tensor imaging study on Wallerian degeneration of corticospinal tract after motor pathway stroke. Neuroimage. 2009;47:451-458. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 38. | Pineiro, R, Pendlebury, ST, Smith, S, et al. Relating MRI changes to motor deficit after ischemic stroke by segmentation of functional motor pathways. Stroke. 2000;31: 672-679. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 39. | Hua, K, Zhang, J, Wakana, S, et al. Tract probability maps in stereotaxic spaces: analyses of white matter anatomy and tract-specific quantification. Neuroimage. 2008;39:336-347. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 40. | Zhu, LL, Lindenberg, R, Alexander, MP, Schlaug, G. Lesion load of the corticospinal tract predicts motor impairment in chronic stroke. Stroke. 2010;41:910-915. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 41. | Findlater, SE, Hawe, RL, Mazerolle, EL, et al. Comparing CST lesion metrics as biomarkers for recovery of motor and proprioceptive impairments after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019;33:848-861. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
| 42. | Reeves, MJ, Bushnell, CD, Howard, G, et al. Sex differences in stroke: epidemiology, clinical presentation, medical care, and outcomes. Lancet Neurol. 2008;7:915-926. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 43. | Voyer, D, Voyer, SD, Saint-Aubin, J. Sex differences in visual-spatial working memory: a meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017;24:307-334. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 44. | Desrosiers, J, Hébert, R, Bravo, G, Dutil, E. The purdue pegboard test: normative data for people aged 60 and over. Disabil Rehabil. 1995;17:217-224. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 45. | Yeudall, LT, Fromm, D, Reddon, JR, Stefanyk, WO. Normative data stratified by age and sex for 12 neuropsychological tests. J Clin Psychol. 1986;42:918-946. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
| 46. | Peters, M, Servos, P, Day, R. Marked sex differences on a fine motor skill task disappear when finger size is used as covariate. J Appl Psychol. 1990;75:87-90. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 47. | Smithard, DG. Stroke in frail older people. Geriatrics. 2017;2:24. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 48. | Allen, SM, Mor, V, Raveis, V, Houts, P. Measurement of need for assistance with daily activities: quantifying the influence of gender roles. J Gerontol. 1993;48:S204-S211. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 49. | Tanlaka, E, King-Shier, K, Green, T, Seneviratne, C, Dukelow, S. Inpatient rehabilitation care in Alberta: how much does stroke severity and timing matter? Can J Neurol Sci. 2019;46:691-701. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 50. | Tanlaka, E, King-Shier, K, Green, T, Seneviratne, C, Dukelow, S. Sex differences in stroke rehabilitation care in Alberta. Can J Neurol Sci [published online March 12, 2020]. doi:10.1017/cjn.2020.53 Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 51. | Stoy, DB . Recruitment and retention of women in clinical studies: theoretical perspectives and methodological considerations. In: Mastroianni, AC, Faden, R, Federman, D, eds. Women and Health Research: Ethical and Legal Issues of Including Women in Clinical Studies: Volume 2: Workshop and Commissioned Papers. National Academies Press; 1999:45-51. Google Scholar |
| 52. | O’Neill, ZR, Deptuck, HM, Quong, L, et al. Who says “no” to participating in stroke clinical trials and why: an observational study from the Vancouver Stroke Program. Trials. 2019;20:313. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 53. | Rodgers, H, Bosomworth, H, Krebs, HI, et al. Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394:51-62. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
| 54. | Wolf, SL, Winstein, CJ, Miller, JP, et al. Effect of constraint-induced movement therapy on upper extremity function 3 to 9 months after stroke. JAMA. 2006;296:2095. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 55. | Lo, AC, Guarino, PD, Richards, LG, et al. Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1772-1783. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
| 56. | Winstein, CJ, Wolf, SL, Dromerick, AW, et al. Effect of a task-oriented rehabilitation program on upper extremity recovery following motor stroke. JAMA. 2016;315:571-581. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI |
Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1545968320935811