Secondary analysis of a randomized trial demonstrates upper-limb paresis severity determines practice dosage in subacute stroke, indicating motor impairment limits high-repetition therapy.
Background and Purpose Intensive, high‐repetition practice is one of the strategies incorporated into upper‐limb task‐oriented training (UL‐TOT) to promote experience‐dependent neural plasticity after stroke. Although a target of 300 repetitions during a one‐hour UL‐TOT session is feasible, considerable variability in the practice dosage achieved across individuals has been observed. Multiple factors may influence practice dosage during UL‐TOT. Therefore, this exploratory secondary analysis aimed to examine factors associated with practice dosage during UL‐TOT in individuals with stroke. Methods This secondary analysis included data from 33 individuals with subacute stroke enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. Associations between age, sex, stroke type, lesion location and volume, poststroke duration, upper‐limb paresis severity, spasticity severity, and depression severity (independent variables), and practice dosage (dependent variable) were analyzed using stepwise multiple linear regression. Results Among the variables examined, upper‐limb paresis severity was the only factor retained in the final stepwise multiple linear regression model and was significantly associated with practice dosage within this dataset ( β = 0.804; p < 0.001). The regression model was statistically significant and explained 63.4% of the variance in practice dosage (adjusted R 2 = 0.634). Discussion Upper‐limb paresis severity was the only factor significantly associated with practice dosage during therapist‐guided UL‐TOT in individuals with subacute stroke within this dataset. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, given the small sample size and the exploratory nature of the analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Durairaj et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: