Cerebral StrokeNCT05683158

Compensatory Kinematic Movements in Various Directions After Stroke

An observational study of Cerebral Stroke and Hemiplegia, Spastic, run by University of Valencia at 1 site in South Korea.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record

Search all trials

Trial summary

This is cross-sectional study. By comparing kinematic analysis between stroke and healthy subjects in various directions, this investigation analyzes the compensatory kinematic movement for reaching task in stroke survivors Read more about this study

Who is it for?: Ages 40 to 85 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for: Cerebral Stroke, Hemiplegia, Spastic
How many people: 96 participants
Where: 1 siteSouth Korea
Study dates: 10 Aug 2022to 10 Jul 2023
Phase: Observational
Are there results?: Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

Ages 40 to 85 years
All sexes
Healthy volunteers accepted
Adult, Older adult

Study population: Recruit research participants from the healthy group of 61 participants at the gym for the disabled of Ulsan city and Ulsan national institute of science and technology. Another group of 35 patients who enter the largest gym for the disabled of Ulsan city.

Who may be able to join

The inclusion criteria used in the randomized controlled trials were as follows:
Stroke
Subject consisted of the physician's confirmation of chronic hemiplegia
onset ≥ 6 months
Mini-mental state examination≥25
Biceps ≤2, Triceps≤2

Show all 11Show fewer

Ability to Sit on a chair alone
FMA upper extremity score ≥ 21 points, FMA upper extremity ≤ 66 points
Healthy
Age of matching the stroke group
Absence of neurological disease and orthopedic disease

Who cannot join

Stroke
Biceps>2, Triceps>2
Flaccid
Neglect syndrome
Have neurological disease and orthopedic disease
Lack of coordination

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

South Korea1 site

Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology
Ulsan, Ulju, 44919

Other trials in South Korea

About this study

Official title: Compensatory Kinematic Movement for Reaching Task in Various Directions in After Stroke

Read the detailed description

After Institutional Review Board approval, It recruits 2 groups. one group is elderly and another group is stroke survivors. the stroke group that meets the criteria. Another group is age matching of the stroke and not having an orthopedic or neurological disease. Participants of all the groups are assessed for kinematic by motion capture During reaching arm(affected side; stroke group, non-dominant side; healthy group) in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees). Retroreflective markers are placed on 11 anatomical place (3th metacarpal joint, both acromion, elbow lateral and medial epicondyle, lateral and medial styloid process, xyphoid process, sternum, C7, T4). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible in three directions. The subject reach to a bell 5 times in each direction and assess clinical evaluation such as Fugl Meyer Assessment, Postural Assessment Scale, Modified Ashworth Scale, shoulder-elbow range of motion and Trunk Instability scale.

Conditions: Cerebral Stroke, Hemiplegia, Spastic
Keywords: Chronic stroke, Reaching task, Motion capture
Medical subject headings: Stroke, Hemiplegia

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

Study groups in NCT05683158
Study group	Role	What they receive
chronic stroke		The subject consisted of the physician's confirmation of chronic hemiplegia onset ≥ 6 months Mini-mental state examination≥25 Biceps ≤2, Triceps≤2 Ability to Sit on a chair alone FMA upper extremity score ≥ 21points, FMA upper extremity score ≤ 66 points The symptom is mild or moderate level (MAS≤2) and can sit alone. The subject reaches to target by affected arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees)
Healthy		Matching aged people, not having neurological system or orthopedic disease on Upper extremity. The subject reaches to target by non-dominant arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees)

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

Differences in Spatial Measurements of Trunk Dislocation Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Trunk dislocation (reaching phase in millimetre; mm) in reaching task. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Measured: 1 time (Baseline)
Differences in Spatial Measurements of Elbow and Shoulder Angle Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Elbow extension and shoulder flexion angle (degree) in reaching task. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Measured: 1 time (Baseline)
Differences in Temporal Measurements of Movement Unit Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Movement units are quantified by counting velocity peaks during the reaching task. A movement unit is defined as a velocity profile segment between a local minimum and the following maximum velocity that exceeds 20 mm/s, with a minimum time interval of 150 ms between subsequent peaks. This measure represents the smoothness of movement, where fewer movement units indicate smoother motion The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Measured: 1 time (Baseline)
Differences in Temporal Measurements of Hand Movement Time Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
The period from hand tangential velocity movement onset to offset was the total time (entire time of reach and return phase [second]). The period when the tangential velocity exceeded 10% of its peak was termed hand movement onset, whereas that when the tangential velocity stayed below 10% of its peak was termed hand movement offset.
The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Measured: 1 time (Baseline)
Differences in Temporal Measurements of Hand Velocity Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Tangential velocity was computed for the hand marker's velocity. Peak elbow angular velocity (rad/s) during elbow extension were measured The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Measured: 1 time (Baseline)
Differences in Temporal Measurements of Elbow Extension Acceleration Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Acceleration (rad/s2) during elbow extension was measured The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Measured: 1 time (Baseline)
Difference of the Components Temporal Measurements Between Healthy and Stroke
Tangential velocity was computed for the hand marker's velocity. The period when the tangential velocity exceeded 10% of its peak was termed hand movement onset, whereas that when the tangential velocity stayed below 10% of its peak was termed hand movement offset. Peak hand velocity (mm/s) was analyzed.
The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Measured: 1 time (Baseline)

Secondary outcomes (1)

Comparison of Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scores Between Chronic Stroke Patients and Healthy
Related Fugl-Meyer Assessment score(dependent) to predictors(independent) in three directions.
In sitting position, the sum of each subtotal score is 66 (maximum) and the minimum is 0. Subscales were summed to compute a total score. Cutoff scores defined 0~20: severe, 21 ~ 50: moderate, 51~66: mild
1. Reflex activity_max 4 score, 2) Volitional movement within synergies_ max 18, 3) Volitional movement mixing synergies_ max 6, 4) Volitional movement with little or no synergy_ max 6, 5) Normal reflex activity_max 2, 6) Wrist movement_ max 10, 7) Hand movement with grasp_ max 14, 8) coordination/speed_max 6.
Measured: Baseline

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

10 Aug 202210 Jul 2023

First posted12 Jan 2023
Study start10 Aug 2022
Primary completion30 Jun 2023
Study completion10 Jul 2023

Resources

Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
Other trials for Cerebral StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
More trials run by University of ValenciaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design

Study type: Observational
Observational model: Case-control
Time perspective: Cross-sectional
Enrolment: 96 participants (actual)

IDs, dates and publications

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05683158
Sponsor's protocol ID: Kinematic movements of stroke
Status last verified: Feb 2025
First submitted: 21 Dec 2022
Last updated: 24 Feb 2025
Results posted: Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
Data monitoring committee: No
FDA-regulated drug: No
FDA-regulated device: No
Individual data sharing: No

Publications

Alt Murphy M, Murphy S, Persson HC, Bergstrom UB, Sunnerhagen KS. Kinematic Analysis Using 3D Motion Capture of Drinking Task in People With and Without Upper-extremity Impairments. J Vis Exp. 2018 Mar 28;(133):57228. doi: 10.3791/57228.
PubMed 29658937
Wu CY, Liing RJ, Chen HC, Chen CL, Lin KC. Arm and trunk movement kinematics during seated reaching within and beyond arm's length in people with stroke: a validity study. Phys Ther. 2014 Jun;94(6):845-56. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130101. Epub 2014 Jan 30.
PubMed 24481598
Machado LR, Heathcock J, Carvalho RP, Pereira ND, Tudella E. Kinematic characteristics of arm and trunk when drinking from a glass in children with and without cerebral palsy. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2019 Mar;63:201-206. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.03.011. Epub 2019 Mar 19.
PubMed 30925379
Lobo-Prat J, Font-Llagunes JM, Gomez-Perez C, Medina-Casanovas J, Angulo-Barroso RM. New biomechanical model for clinical evaluation of the upper extremity motion in subjects with neurological disorders: an application case. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2014 Aug;17(10):1144-56. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2012.738199. Epub 2012 Nov 27.
PubMed 23181596
Hsieh YW, Liing RJ, Lin KC, Wu CY, Liou TH, Lin JC, Hung JW. Sequencing bilateral robot-assisted arm therapy and constraint-induced therapy improves reach to press and trunk kinematics in patients with stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Mar 22;13:31. doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0138-5.
PubMed 27000446
Cirstea MC, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000 May;123 ( Pt 5):940-53. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.5.940.
PubMed 10775539
Levin MF, Michaelsen SM, Cirstea CM, Roby-Brami A. Use of the trunk for reaching targets placed within and beyond the reach in adult hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res. 2002 Mar;143(2):171-80. doi: 10.1007/s00221-001-0976-6. Epub 2002 Jan 8.
PubMed 11880893
Adamovich SV, Archambault PS, Ghafouri M, Levin MF, Poizner H, Feldman AG. Hand trajectory invariance in reaching movements involving the trunk. Exp Brain Res. 2001 Jun;138(3):288-303. doi: 10.1007/s002210100694.
PubMed 11460767
Dean CM, Shepherd RB. Task-related training improves performance of seated reaching tasks after stroke. A randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 1997 Apr;28(4):722-8. doi: 10.1161/01.str.28.4.722.
PubMed 9099186
Dean C, Shepherd R, Adams R. Sitting balance I: trunk-arm coordination and the contribution of the lower limbs during self-paced reaching in sitting. Gait Posture. 1999 Oct;10(2):135-46. doi: 10.1016/s0966-6362(99)00026-0.
PubMed 10502647
Thrane G, Sunnerhagen KS, Murphy MA. Upper limb kinematics during the first year after stroke: the stroke arm longitudinal study at the University of Gothenburg (SALGOT). J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Jun 15;17(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00705-2.
PubMed 32539738
Cirstea MC, Mitnitski AB, Feldman AG, Levin MF. Interjoint coordination dynamics during reaching in stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2003 Aug;151(3):289-300. doi: 10.1007/s00221-003-1438-0. Epub 2003 Jun 19.
PubMed 12819841
Schwarz A, Veerbeek JM, Held JPO, Buurke JH, Luft AR. Measures of Interjoint Coordination Post-stroke Across Different Upper Limb Movement Tasks. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021 Jan 28;8:620805. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.620805. eCollection 2020.
PubMed 33585418

Want to know more?

The sponsor has not listed a contact. The official record may have more details.

Talk to your doctor first and take this page with you. Only the study team can confirm whether you can join.

Questions to ask the study team

What is the study trying to find out?
What would I need to do, and how often would I visit?
Could I receive a placebo instead of the treatment?
What are the possible risks and benefits for me?
Will it cost me anything? Are travel or time paid for?
Can I keep seeing my own doctor during the study?
What happens when the study ends?

See locations

Active, not recruitingObservational study
Symptomatic Carotid Outcomes Registry
Carotid Stenosis, Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingPhase 3
Stroke and Systemic Embolism Prevention in Adult Participants With Atrial Fibrillation
Atrial Fibrillation (AF)
Not yet recruiting
The Effects of an Augmented Reality-Based Mirror Therapy System in Patients With Stroke
Stroke
Recruiting
A Pivotal Study Evaluating Safety and Effectiveness of Adaptative Tip Catheter in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke
Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
Role of EEG in Differentiation Between Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Acute Haemorrhagic Stroke

All Cerebral Stroke trials

Study at a glance

From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Feb 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.

Official title: Compensatory Kinematic Movement for Reaching Task in Various Directions in After Stroke
ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05683158
Acronym / sponsor ID: Kinematic movements of stroke
Conditions: Cerebral Stroke, Hemiplegia, Spastic
Keywords: Chronic stroke, Reaching task, Motion capture
Study type: Observational
Recruitment status: Completed
Enrolment: 96 participants (actual)
Lead sponsor: University of ValenciaUniversity, hospital or other
Collaborators: Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology
Study start: 10 Aug 2022 (actual)
Primary completion: 30 Jun 2023 (actual)
Study completion: 10 Jul 2023 (actual)
First posted: 12 Jan 2023 (actual)
Results: Posted 24 Feb 2025

Clinical summary

The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.

Detailed description

Study design

Observational model: Case-control
Time perspective: Cross-sectional
Number of arms: 2

Arm	Type	Receives
chronic stroke	–	–The subject consisted of the physician's confirmation of chronic hemiplegia onset ≥ 6 months Mini-mental state examination≥25 Biceps ≤2, Triceps≤2 Ability to Sit on a chair alone FMA upper extremity score ≥ 21points, FMA upper extremity score ≤ 66 points The symptom is mild or moderate level (MAS≤2) and can sit alone. The subject reaches to target by affected arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees)
Healthy	–	–Matching aged people, not having neurological system or orthopedic disease on Upper extremity. The subject reaches to target by non-dominant arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees)

Who may qualify

Ages: 40 to 85 years
Sex: All
Healthy volunteers: Accepted
Age groups: Adult, Older adult
Study population: Recruit research participants from the healthy group of 61 participants at the gym for the disabled of Ulsan city and Ulsan national institute of science and technology. Another group of 35 patients who enter the largest gym for the disabled of Ulsan city.

Key inclusion criteria (11 listed)

Stroke
Subject consisted of the physician's confirmation of chronic hemiplegia
onset ≥ 6 months
Mini-mental state examination≥25
Biceps ≤2, Triceps≤2

Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)

Stroke
Biceps>2, Triceps>2
Flaccid
Neglect syndrome
Have neurological disease and orthopedic disease

Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Primary outcome

Differences in Spatial Measurements of Trunk Dislocation Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Time frame: 1 time (Baseline)
Trunk dislocation (reaching phase in millimetre; mm) in reaching task. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Differences in Spatial Measurements of Elbow and Shoulder Angle Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Time frame: 1 time (Baseline)
Elbow extension and shoulder flexion angle (degree) in reaching task. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Differences in Temporal Measurements of Movement Unit Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Time frame: 1 time (Baseline)
Movement units are quantified by counting velocity peaks during the reaching task. A movement unit is defined as a velocity profile segment between a local minimum and the following maximum velocity that exceeds 20 mm/s, with a minimum time interval of 150 ms between subsequent peaks. This measure represents the smoothness of movement, where fewer movement units indicate smoother motion The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Differences in Temporal Measurements of Hand Movement Time Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Time frame: 1 time (Baseline)
The period from hand tangential velocity movement onset to offset was the total time (entire time of reach and return phase [second]). The period when the tangential velocity exceeded 10% of its peak was termed hand movement onset, whereas that when the tangential velocity stayed below 10% of its peak was termed hand movement offset. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Differences in Temporal Measurements of Hand Velocity Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Time frame: 1 time (Baseline)
Tangential velocity was computed for the hand marker's velocity. Peak elbow angular velocity (rad/s) during elbow extension were measured The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Differences in Temporal Measurements of Elbow Extension Acceleration Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients
Time frame: 1 time (Baseline)
Acceleration (rad/s2) during elbow extension was measured The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.
Difference of the Components Temporal Measurements Between Healthy and Stroke
Time frame: 1 time (Baseline)
Tangential velocity was computed for the hand marker's velocity. The period when the tangential velocity exceeded 10% of its peak was termed hand movement onset, whereas that when the tangential velocity stayed below 10% of its peak was termed hand movement offset. Peak hand velocity (mm/s) was analyzed. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements.

1 secondary outcome

Comparison of Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scores Between Chronic Stroke Patients and Healthy
Time frame: Baseline

Results and safety

Results posted to the registry on 24 Feb 2025, as reported by the sponsor. Figures are copied from the record, not re-analysed. Full results on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Participant flow

Group	Started	Completed
Chronic Stroke	35	35
Healthy	61	61

Primary outcome: Differences in Spatial Measurements of Trunk Dislocation Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients

Time frame: 1 time (Baseline). Mean (Standard Deviation). Unit: millimeter

Measure	Chronic Stroke n = 35	Healthy n = 61
Trunk dislocation (mm)_Forward	272.44 (88.63)	221.24 (71.37)
Trunk dislocation (mm)_Lateral	288.14 (90.99)	253.50 (74.54)
Trunk dislocation (mm)_Medial	274.83 (88.31)	230.76 (80.51)

Chronic Stroke vs Healthy: Mean Difference (Net): 1.71, p <.001, ANOVA
Chronic Stroke vs Healthy: Mean Difference (Net): 0.44, p <.001, ANOVA

Population analysed: The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy

Primary outcome: Differences in Spatial Measurements of Elbow and Shoulder Angle Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients

Time frame: 1 time (Baseline). Mean (Standard Deviation). Unit: Degree

Measure	Chronic Stroke n = 35	Healthy n = 61
Elbow extension_Forward	132.27 (20.53)	131.97 (9.26)
Elbow extension_Lateral	133.70 (19.44)	135.20 (13.20)
Elbow extension_Medial	127.04 (24.93)	127.46 (12.31)
Shoulder flexion_Forward	131.49 (19.39)	123.29 (18.12)
Shoulder flexion_Lateral	130.95 (21.43)	128.64 (13.39)
Shoulder flexion_Medial	135.00 (18.55)	123.67 (13.80)

Population analysed: The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy

Primary outcome: Differences in Temporal Measurements of Movement Unit Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients

Time frame: 1 time (Baseline). Mean (Standard Deviation). Unit: number of peaks

Measure	Chronic Stroke n = 35	Healthy n = 61
Movement unit_Forward	4.47 (2.17)	3.18 (0.80)
Movement unit_Lateral	5.02 (2.60)	2.63 (0.67)
Movement unit_Medial	4.11 (1.94)	2.66 (0.76)

Population analysed: The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy

Primary outcome: Differences in Temporal Measurements of Hand Movement Time Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients

Time frame: 1 time (Baseline). Mean (Standard Deviation). Unit: second

Measure	Chronic Stroke n = 35	Healthy n = 61
Total time_Forward	3.42 (1.13)	2.09 (0.44)
Total time_Lateral	3.49 (1.21)	2.07 (0.40)
Total time_Medial	3.26 (1.02)	1.98 (0.37)

Population analysed: The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy

1 secondary outcome is reported in the full results.

Adverse events

Other adverse events reported at 0% frequency or more

Group	Serious adverse events	Other adverse events	Deaths
Chronic Stroke	0 of 0	0 of 0	0
Healthy	0 of 0	0 of 0	0

Limitations and caveats (from the sponsor): the absence of randomization increased the risk of confounding bias.

Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…

Research links

Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Feb 2025.
Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
Background: PubMed 29658937Alt Murphy M, Murphy S, Persson HC, Bergstrom UB, Sunnerhagen KS. Kinematic Analysis Using 3D Motion Capture of Drinking Task in People With and Without Upper-extremity Impairments. J Vis Exp. 2018 Mar 28;(133):57228. doi: 10.3791/57228.
Background: PubMed 24481598Wu CY, Liing RJ, Chen HC, Chen CL, Lin KC. Arm and trunk movement kinematics during seated reaching within and beyond arm's length in people with stroke: a validity study. Phys Ther. 2014 Jun;94(6):845-56. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130101. Epub 2014 Jan 30.
Background: PubMed 30925379Machado LR, Heathcock J, Carvalho RP, Pereira ND, Tudella E. Kinematic characteristics of arm and trunk when drinking from a glass in children with and without cerebral palsy. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2019 Mar;63:201-206. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.03.011. Epub 2019 Mar 19.
Background: PubMed 23181596Lobo-Prat J, Font-Llagunes JM, Gomez-Perez C, Medina-Casanovas J, Angulo-Barroso RM. New biomechanical model for clinical evaluation of the upper extremity motion in subjects with neurological disorders: an application case. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2014 Aug;17(10):1144-56. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2012.738199. Epub 2012 Nov 27.
Background: PubMed 27000446Hsieh YW, Liing RJ, Lin KC, Wu CY, Liou TH, Lin JC, Hung JW. Sequencing bilateral robot-assisted arm therapy and constraint-induced therapy improves reach to press and trunk kinematics in patients with stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Mar 22;13:31. doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0138-5.
Background: PubMed 10775539Cirstea MC, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000 May;123 ( Pt 5):940-53. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.5.940.
Background: PubMed 11880893Levin MF, Michaelsen SM, Cirstea CM, Roby-Brami A. Use of the trunk for reaching targets placed within and beyond the reach in adult hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res. 2002 Mar;143(2):171-80. doi: 10.1007/s00221-001-0976-6. Epub 2002 Jan 8.
Background: PubMed 11460767Adamovich SV, Archambault PS, Ghafouri M, Levin MF, Poizner H, Feldman AG. Hand trajectory invariance in reaching movements involving the trunk. Exp Brain Res. 2001 Jun;138(3):288-303. doi: 10.1007/s002210100694.
Background: PubMed 9099186Dean CM, Shepherd RB. Task-related training improves performance of seated reaching tasks after stroke. A randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 1997 Apr;28(4):722-8. doi: 10.1161/01.str.28.4.722.
Background: PubMed 10502647Dean C, Shepherd R, Adams R. Sitting balance I: trunk-arm coordination and the contribution of the lower limbs during self-paced reaching in sitting. Gait Posture. 1999 Oct;10(2):135-46. doi: 10.1016/s0966-6362(99)00026-0.
Background: PubMed 32539738Thrane G, Sunnerhagen KS, Murphy MA. Upper limb kinematics during the first year after stroke: the stroke arm longitudinal study at the University of Gothenburg (SALGOT). J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Jun 15;17(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00705-2.
Background: PubMed 12819841Cirstea MC, Mitnitski AB, Feldman AG, Levin MF. Interjoint coordination dynamics during reaching in stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2003 Aug;151(3):289-300. doi: 10.1007/s00221-003-1438-0. Epub 2003 Jun 19.
Individual participant dataSharing planned: No

Related trials for Cerebral Stroke

Active, not recruitingObservational study
Symptomatic Carotid Outcomes Registry
Carotid Stenosis, Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingPhase 3
Stroke and Systemic Embolism Prevention in Adult Participants With Atrial Fibrillation
Atrial Fibrillation (AF)
Not yet recruiting
The Effects of an Augmented Reality-Based Mirror Therapy System in Patients With Stroke
Stroke
Recruiting
A Pivotal Study Evaluating Safety and Effectiveness of Adaptative Tip Catheter in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke
Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
Role of EEG in Differentiation Between Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Acute Haemorrhagic Stroke

Referral and contact

AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.

Jóse Casaña Granell, PhD principal investigator

University of Valencia

Joaquin Calatayud Villalba, PhD principal investigator

University of Valencia

Sang Hoon Kang, PhD principal investigator

Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology

1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Cerebral Stroke and Hemiplegia, Spastic, run by University of Valencia at 1 site in South Korea.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 11 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Feb 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in South Korea. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 24 Feb 2025). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Differences in Spatial Measurements of Trunk Dislocation Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients (time frame: 1 time (Baseline)). The study lists 7 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05683158, which also lists 13 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Feb 2025.