Abstract
Background Numerous studies have found associations when change scores are regressed onto initial impairments in people with stroke (slopes ≈ 0.7). However, there are important statistical considerations that limit the conclusions we can draw about recovery from these studies.
Objective To provide an accessible “check-list” of conceptual and analytical issues on longitudinal measures of stroke recovery. Proportional recovery is an illustrative example, but these considerations apply broadly to studies of change over time.
Methods Using a pooled dataset of N = 373 Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) upper extremity scores, we ran simulations to illustrate three considerations: (1) how change scores can be problematic in this context; (2) how “nil” and non-zero null-hypothesis significance tests can be used; and (3) how scale boundaries can create the illusion of proportionality, while other analytical procedures (e.g., post-hoc classifications) can augment this problem.
Results Our simulations highlight several limitations of common methods for analyzing recovery over time. Critically, we find that uniform recovery (in the population) leads to similar group-level statistics (regression slopes) and individual-level classifications (into fitters and non-fitters) that have been claimed as evidence for the proportional recovery rule.
Conclusions Our results highlight that one cannot identify whether proportional recovery is true or not based on commonly used methods. We illustrate how these techniques (regressing change scores onto baseline values), measurement tools (bounded scales), and post-hoc classifications (e.g., “non-fitters”) can create spurious results. Going forward the field needs to carefully consider the influence of these factors on how we measure, analyze, and conceptualize recovery.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors received no funding specifically to pursue this work. SHS is the co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer of Kinarm that commercialize robotic technology for neurological assessment. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Funding Statement
The authors received no funding specifically to pursue this work.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Following reviewer comments, we have made numerous revisions throughout the text of the manuscript. Specifically, we have clarified the language around null and alternative hypotheses as distinct from scientific explanations. Additionally, we have added new analyses of the real data and present more details of our simulations in a new appendix: Supplemental Appendix II.
Data Availability
Currently, all empirical data underlying the simulations are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. All code for simulations are included in the supplemental appendix.
