Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18254038›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Interventions for motor apraxia following stroke.

C West, A Bowen, A Hesketh, A Vail

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for perceptual disorders following stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Occupational therapy for cognitive impairment in stroke patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C West
A Bowen
A Hesketh
A Vail
Salford Royal Hospital · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApraxia is a cognitive disorder that can occur after stroke. It prevents a person from carrying out a learned movement. Various interventions are used to treat apraxia but evidence of their benefit has been lacking.

objectivesTo determine which therapeutic interventions targeted at motor apraxia reduce disability. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched November 2006). In addition, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2007), EMBASE (1980 to November 2006), CINAHL (1982 to November 2006), PsycINFO (1974 to November 2006), the Research Index of the Occupational Therapy Journal (searched November 2006), REHABDATA (1956 to November 2006), the National Research Register (searched November 2006) and Current Controlled Trials Register (searched November 2006). We reviewed the reference lists of all articles that we identified as relevant. We made efforts to find both published and unpublished trials by writing to key authors and journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of therapeutic intervention for motor apraxia in stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author searched the titles, abstracts and keywords. Four review authors extracted data and analysed trial quality. We contacted investigators for further details of trials if necessary. MAIN

resultsThree trials including a total of 132 participants were included in the review. There was evidence of a small and short-lived therapeutic effect in the two studies that reported change in activities of daily living (102 participants) but this was not considered clinically significant and did not persist at the longer-term follow up. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of specific therapeutic interventions for motor apraxia after stroke. Further research of higher quality is required. As we did not review whether patients with apraxia benefit from rehabilitation input in general, they should continue to receive general stroke rehabilitation services.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationActivities of Daily LivingApraxiasHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionStroke

Identifiers

PMID18254038
PMCPMC6464830
OpenAlexW2142226465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.