Identifying the individuals who may achieve a favorable upper limb function after severe stroke-related upper limb impairment remains challenging. Incorporating a biomarker, motor-evoked potential (MEP), may improve prediction accuracy.
Objectives
To evaluate the prediction accuracy of baseline MEP status for upper limb motor outcome at 3 months post-stroke and to determine the predictive association between MEP status and upper limb motor outcome.
Methods
This prospective longitudinal cohort study included patients ≥18 years of age with severe upper limb impairment within 4 weeks post-stroke. MEP status was examined with transcranial magnetic stimulation at baseline. The primary outcome was the Fugl–Meyer Assessment upper extremity score (FMA) at follow-up 3 months post-stroke. The accuracy was determined by comparing MEP status (MEP present or absent) with 2 FMA outcome categories (FMA ≤ or >17) including calculation of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The predictive association between MEP status and 3 FMA outcome categories (FMA: 0-4; 5-17; and 18-66) was examined using ordinal logistic regression.
Results
Of 80 included patients, 74 completed follow-up. Overall accuracy was 75.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.3%-84.9%). Specificity was 80.3% (95% CI: 68.2%-89.4%), sensitivity 53.8% (95% CI: 25.1%-80.8%), PPV 36.8% (95% CI: 16.3%-61.6%), and NPV 89.1% (CI 95% 77.8%-95.9%). MEP presence was strongly associated with a higher motor outcome category at follow-up (odds ratio: 6.6; 95% CI: 2.1-21.9; P = .001).
Conclusions
Assessing MEP status is a clinically relevant approach for predicting upper limb motor outcomes in patients with severe upper limb impairment after stroke.
FeiginVLBraininMNorrvingB, et al. World Stroke Organization: global stroke fact sheet 2025. Int J Stroke. 2025;20:132-144.
2.
RajsicSGotheHBorbaHH, et al. Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(1):107-134. doi:10.1007/s10198-018-0984-0
3.
van KuijkAAPasmanJWHendricksHTZwartsMJGeurtsACH.Predicting hand motor recovery in severe stroke: the role of motor evoked potentials in relation to early clinical assessment. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(1):45-51. doi:10.1177/1545968308317578
4.
VeerbeekJMKwakkelGvan WegenEEHKetJCFHeymansMW.Early prediction of outcome of activities of daily living after stroke a systematic review. Stroke. 2011;42(5):1482-1488. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.604090
5.
EdwardsJDKoehoornMBoydLALevyAR.Is health-related quality of life improving after stroke? A comparison of health utilities indices among Canadians with stroke between 1996 and 2005. Stroke. 2010;41(5):996-1000. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.576678
6.
LanghornePFCouparFBPollockAP.Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(8):741-754. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4
7.
HaywardKSKuysSSBarkerRNBrauerSG.Can stroke survivors with severe upper arm disability achieve a clinically important change in arm function during inpatient rehabilitation? A multicentre, prospective, observational study. NeuroRehabilitation. 2014;35(1):17-23. doi:10.3233/NRE-141096
8.
StinearCMByblowWDAckerleySJSmithMCBorgesVMBarberPA.PREP2: a biomarker-based algorithm for predicting upper limb function after stroke. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2017;4(11):811-820. doi:10.1002/acn3.488
9.
HaywardKSSchmidtJLohseKR, et al. Are we armed with the right data? Pooled individual data review of biomarkers in people with severe upper limb impairment after stroke. NeuroImage Clin. 2017;13(C):310-319. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2016.09.015
10.
StinearCMLangCEZeilerSByblowWD.Advances and challenges in stroke rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(4):348-360. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30415-6
11.
RossoCLamyJ-C.Prediction of motor recovery after stroke: being pragmatic or innovative?Curr Opin Neurol. 2020;33(4):482-487. doi:10.1097/WCO.0000000000000843
12.
BoydLAHaywardKSWardNS, et al. Biomarkers of stroke recovery: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke. 2017;12(5):480-493. doi:10.1177/1747493017714176
13.
GroppaSOlivieroAEisenA, et al. A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;123(5):858-882. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2012.01.010
14.
ByrnesMLThickbroomGWPhillipsBAWilsonSAMastagliaFL.Physiological studies of the corticomotor projection to the hand after subcortical stroke. Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;110(3):487-498. doi:10.1016/S1388-2457(98)00044-3
15.
SmithM-CStinearCM.Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in stroke: ready for clinical practice?J Clin Neurosci. 2016;31:10-14. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2016.01.034
16.
ByblowWDStinearCMBarberPAPetoeMAAckerleySJ.Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol. 2015;78(6):848-859. doi:10.1002/ana.24472
17.
PowellESWestgatePMGoldsteinLBSawakiL.Absence of motor-evoked potentials does not predict poor recovery in patients with severe-moderate stroke: an exploratory analysis. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2019;1(3-4):100023. doi:10.1016/j.arrct.2019.100023
JordanHNorrieOStinearCM.The accuracy of the PREP2 prediction tool for upper limb outcomes after stroke as part of routine clinical care. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2026;40(3):235-245. doi:10.1177/15459683251412283
20.
van der GroenOGhoshMNormanR, et al. Point of view on outcome prediction models in post-stroke motor recovery. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2024;38(5):386-398. doi:10.1177/15459683241237975
21.
ShanksMJByblowWD.Corticomotor pathway function and recovery after stroke: a look back and a way forward. J Physiol. 2025;603(3):651-662. doi:10.1113/JP285562
22.
von ElmEAltmanDGEggerM, et al. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344–349. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
23.
HesseSWernerCPohlMRueckriemSMehrholzJLingnauML.Computerized arm training improves the motor control of the severely affected arm after stroke–a single-blinded randomized trial in two centers. Stroke. 2005;36(9):1960-1966. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000177865.37334.ce
24.
SchickTSchlakeH-PKalluskyJ, et al. Synergy effects of combined multichannel EMG-triggered electrical stimulation and mirror therapy in subacute stroke patients with severe or very severe arm/hand paresis. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2017;35(3):319-332. doi:10.3233/RNN-160710
25.
RossiSHallettMRossiniPMPascual-LeoneA.Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(12):2008-2039. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016
26.
GrayLJPAliMPLydenPDMDBathPMWMDF. Interconversion of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Scandinavian Stroke Scale in Acute Stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;18(6):466-468. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2009.02.003
PlatzTPinkowskiCvan WijckFKimI-Hdi BellaPJohnsonG.Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19(4):404-411. doi:10.1191/0269215505cr832oa
29.
LundquistCBMariboT.The Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity: reliability, responsiveness and validity of the Danish version. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(9):934-939. doi:10.3109/09638288.2016.1163422
30.
McDonnellM.Action research arm test. Aust J Physiother. 2008;54(3):220-220. doi:10.1016/S0004-9514(08)70034-5
31.
Prange-LasonderGBAlt MurphyMLamersI, et al. European evidence-based recommendations for clinical assessment of upper limb in neurorehabilitation (CAULIN): data synthesis from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021;18(1):162-112. doi:10.1186/s12984-021-00951-y
32.
PohlJHeldJPOVerheydenG, et al. Consensus-based core set of outcome measures for clinical motor rehabilitation after stroke—a Delphi study. Front Neurol. 2020;11:875. doi:10.3389/fneur.2020.00875
33.
KwakkelGLanninNABorschmannK, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(9):784-792. doi:10.1177/1545968317732662
SmithM-CAckerleySJMonigattiEJScrivenerBJStinearCM.Determining the functional status of the corticospinal tract within one week of stroke. J Vis Exp. 2020;156:e60665. doi:10.3791/60665
36.
CouparFPollockARowePWeirCLanghorneP.Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(4):291-313.
37.
NijlandRHMvan WegenEEHHarmeling-van der WelBCKwakkelG.Presence of finger extension and shoulder abduction within 72 hours after stroke predicts functional recovery early prediction of functional outcome after stroke: the EPOS cohort study. Stroke. 2010;41(4):745-750. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.572065
38.
SellesRWAndrinopoulouE-RNijlandRH, et al. Computerised patient-specific prediction of the recovery profile of upper limb capacity within stroke services: the next step. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021;92(6):574-581. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2020-324637
39.
LundquistCBNielsenJFArguissainFGBrunnerIC.Accuracy of the upper limb prediction algorithm PREP2 applied 2 weeks poststroke: a prospective longitudinal study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021;35(1):68-78. doi:10.1177/1545968320971763
40.
World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants. 2024. Accessed March 25, 2025.
41.
GDPR.eu. Complete guide to GDPR compliance. Accessed March 3, 2025. https://gdpr.eu/
42.
MillotSDaghsenLCheckouriT, et al. Prediction of Upper Limb Motor Recovery by the PREP2 algorithm in a nonselected population: external validation and influence of cognitive syndromes. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2024;38(10):764-774. doi:10.1177/15459683241270056
43.
KrakauerJWCarmichaelSTCorbettDWittenbergGF.Getting neurorehabilitation right: what can be learned from animal models?Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26(8):923-931. doi:10.1177/1545968312440745
44.
BarthJLohseKRRBlandMDDLangCEE. Predicting later categories of upper limb activity from earlier clinical assessments following stroke: an exploratory analysis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023;20(1):24-24. doi:10.1186/s12984-023-01148-1
45.
DoronNRandD.Is unilateral spatial neglect associated with motor recovery of the affected upper extremity poststroke? A systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019;33(3):179-187.
46.
HendricksHTZwartsMJPlatEFvan LimbeekJ.Systematic review for the early prediction of motor and functional outcome after stroke by using motor-evoked potentials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(9):1303-1308. doi:10.1053/apmr.2002.34284
47.
HoonhorstMHJNijlandRHMvan den BergPJSEmmelotCHKollenBJKwakkelG. Does transcranial magnetic stimulation have an added value to clinical assessment in predicting upper-limb function very early after severe stroke?Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2018;32(8):682-690. doi:10.1177/1545968318785044
48.
KimBWinsteinC.Can neurological biomarkers of brain impairment be used to predict poststroke motor recovery? A systematic review. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31(1):3-24.
49.
SaesMMeskersCGMDaffertshoferAvan WegenEEHKwakkelG.Are early measured resting-state EEG parameters predictive for upper limb motor impairment six months poststroke?Clin Neurophysiol. 2021;132(1):56-62. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2020.09.031
50.
BrunnerILundquistCBPedersenARSpaichEGDosenSSavicA.Brain computer interface training with motor imagery and functional electrical stimulation for patients with severe upper limb paresis after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot trial. J Neuroengi Rehabil. 2024;21(1):10-12. doi:10.1186/s12984-024-01304-1
51.
WoodburyMLPVelozoCAPRichardsLGPDuncanPWPStudenskiSMDLaiS-MP. Dimensionality and construct validity of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the upper extremity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(6):715-723. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.02.036
52.
WoytowiczEJRietschelJCGoodmanRN, et al. Determining levels of upper extremity movement impairment by applying cluster analysis to upper extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment in chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;98(3):456-462. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2016.06.023
53.
de Blas-ZamoranoPMontagut-MartínezPPérez-CruzadoDMerchan-BaezaJ-A. Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper extremity in stroke: a pyschometric systematic review. J Hand Ther. 2026;39(1):22-51. doi:10.1016/j.jht.2025.04.004
54.
MorishitaTHarquelSMaceira-ElviraPEggerPHummelFC.Complexity of neural outputs elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Neurophysiol. 2025;134(5):1341-1358. doi:10.1152/jn.00221.2025
55.
MooneyRAAnayaMAStillingJMCelnikPA.Heightened reticulospinal excitability after severe corticospinal damage in chronic stroke. Ann Neurol. 2025;97(1):163-174. doi:10.1002/ana.27103
