Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33343498›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2020

Sensorimotor vs. Motor Upper Limb Therapy for Patients With Motor and Somatosensory Deficits: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Early Rehabilitation Phase After Stroke.

Nele De Bruyn, Leen Saenen, Liselot Thijs, Annick Van Gils, Eva Ceulemans, Bea Essers, Christophe Lafosse, Marc Michielsen, Hilde Beyens, Fabienne Schillebeeckx and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

12 authors.

Nele De BruynDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Leen SaenenDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Liselot ThijsDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Annick Van GilsDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Eva CeulemansDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Bea EssersDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Christophe LafosseRevArte-Rehabilitation Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Marc MichielsenJessa Hospital Herk-de-Stad, Herk-de-Stad, Belgium.
Hilde BeyensDepartment Acquired Brain Injury, University Hospitals Leuven, Pellenberg, Belgium.
Fabienne SchillebeeckxDepartment Acquired Brain Injury, University Hospitals Leuven, Pellenberg, Belgium.
Kaat AlaertsDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Geert VerheydenDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

randomized controlled (clinical) trialsensorimotor therapystroketreatment outcomeupper extremity

Identifiers

PMID33343498
PMCPMC7746814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.