<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Mirror, Mirror on the Wall &#8211; Stroke Rehabilitation</title> <atom:link href="http://brainblogger.com/2008/10/22/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-stroke-rehabilitation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://brainblogger.com/2008/10/22/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-stroke-rehabilitation/</link> <description>Topics from multidimensional biopsychosocial perspectives</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:27:25 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: dean reinke</title><link>http://brainblogger.com/2008/10/22/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-stroke-rehabilitation/#comment-601578</link> <dc:creator>dean reinke</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:54:07 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://brainblogger.com/?p=1720#comment-601578</guid> <description>I&#039;m just a stroke survivor so I have a stroke-addled brain. There are two things that I think are wrong with almost all stroke rehabilitation research. 1. There is no standard definition of stroke damage. With no standard definition no one can repeat the experiment bacause the starting point is not the same. Please don&#039;t use the excuse that &#039;all strokes are different, all stroke recoveries are different&#039;, the first might be true because a ml. difference in position could result in different deficits, but the recovery part has never been proved. Until we get a longitudinal study done following survivors for 30 years will we know the facts. 2.  No one breaks out recovery of penumbra damage  vs. dead brain damage. I actually use and believe in mirror-box therapy even though to me it has not met scientific standards.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m just a stroke survivor so I have a stroke-addled brain. There are two things that I think are wrong with almost all stroke rehabilitation research.<br /> 1. There is no standard definition of stroke damage. With no standard definition no one can repeat the experiment bacause the starting point is not the same.<br /> Please don&#8217;t use the excuse that &#8216;all strokes are different, all stroke recoveries are different&#8217;, the first might be true because a ml. difference in position could result in different deficits, but the recovery part has never been proved. Until we get a longitudinal study done following survivors for 30 years will we know the facts.<br /> 2.  No one breaks out recovery of penumbra damage  vs. dead brain damage.<br /> I actually use and believe in mirror-box therapy even though to me it has not met scientific standards.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 1/3 queries in 0.003 seconds using apc
Object Caching 257/257 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via dna.brainblogger.com

Served from: brainblogger.com @ 2012-02-09 13:05:54 -->
