Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33190615›Full record

Trial reportNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2021

Telerehabilitation After Stroke Using Readily Available Technology: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Nicola L Saywell, Alain C Vandal, Suzie Mudge, Leigh Hale, Paul Brown, Valery Feigin, Carl Hanger, Denise Taylor

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Augmented reality for stroke rehabilitation during COVID-19.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicola L SaywellAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-4676-3444
Alain C VandalUniversity of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Suzie MudgeAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-3106-6777
Leigh HaleUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Paul BrownUniversity of California, Merced, CA, USA.
Valery FeiginAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Carl HangerCanterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-7952-3936
Denise TaylorAuckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Auckland University of Technology · NZCanterbury District Health Board · NZUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of California, Merced · USUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of people living with stroke has increased demand for rehabilitation. A potential solution is telerehabilitation for health care delivery to promote self-management. One such approach is the Augmented Community Telerehabilitation Intervention (ACTIV). This structured 6-month program uses limited face-to-face sessions, telephone contact, and text messages to augment stroke rehabilitation.

objectiveTo investigate whether ACTIV improved physical function compared with usual care.

methodsThis 2-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted in 4 New Zealand centers. Inclusion criteria were patients with first-ever stroke, age >20 years, and discharged home. A blinded assessor completed outcome measurement in participants' homes at baseline, postintervention, and 6 months postintervention. Stratified block randomization occurred after baseline assessment, with participants allocated to ACTIV or usual care control.

resultsA total of 95 people were recruited (ACTIV: n = 47; control: n = 48). Postintervention intention-to-treat analysis found a nonsignificant difference between the groups in scores (4·51;

conclusionsACTIV was not effective in improving physical function in the ACTIV group compared with the usual care group. The per-protocol analysis raises the possibility that for those who receive more than 50% of the intervention, ACTIV may be effective in preventing deterioration or even improving physical function in people with stroke, in the period immediately following discharge from hospital.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareStroke RehabilitationTelerehabilitationAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSingle-Blind MethodStrokerandomized controlled trialstroketelerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID33190615
PMCPMC7739128
OpenAlexW3100286072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.