Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33479046›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry2021

Computerised patient-specific prediction of the recovery profile of upper limb capacity within stroke services: the next step.

Ruud W Selles, Eleni-Rosalina Andrinopoulou, Rinske H Nijland, Rick van der Vliet, Jorrit Slaman, Erwin Eh van Wegen, Dimitris Rizopoulos, Gerard M Ribbers, Carel Gm Meskers, Gert Kwakkel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Association between lesion location and sensorimotor rhythms in stroke - a systematic review with narrative synthesis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. External Validation of a Dynamic Prediction Model for Upper Limb Function After Stroke.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

10 authors.

Ruud W SellesRehabilitation Medicine & Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands r.selles@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2432-6756
Eleni-Rosalina AndrinopoulouBiostatistics, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Rinske H NijlandRehabilitation Research Centre, Reade, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Rick van der VlietRehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Jorrit SlamanRijndam Rehabilitation Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Erwin Eh van WegenRehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC - Location VUMC, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Dimitris RizopoulosBiostatistics, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Gerard M RibbersRehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Carel Gm MeskersRehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC - Location VUMC, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Gert KwakkelRehabilitation Research Centre, Reade, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPredicting upper limb capacity recovery is important to set treatment goals, select therapies and plan discharge. We introduce a prediction model of the patient-specific profile of upper limb capacity recovery up to 6 months poststroke by incorporating all serially assessed clinical information from patients.

methodsModel input was recovery profile of 450 patients with a first-ever ischaemic hemispheric stroke measured using the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Subjects received at least three assessment sessions, starting within the first week until 6 months poststroke. We developed mixed-effects models that are able to deal with one or multiple measurements per subject, measured at non-fixed time points. The prediction accuracy of the different models was established by a fivefold cross-validation procedure.

resultsA model with only ARAT time course, finger extension and shoulder abduction performed as good as models with more covariates. For the final model, cross-validation prediction errors at 6 months poststroke decreased as the number of measurements per subject increased, from a median error of 8.4 points on the ARAT (Q1-Q3:1.7-28.1) when one measurement early poststroke was used, to 2.3 (Q1-Q3:1-7.2) for seven measurements. An online version of the recovery model was developed that can be linked to data acquisition environments.

conclusionOur innovative dynamic model can predict real-time, patient-specific upper limb capacity recovery profiles up to 6 months poststroke. The model can use all available serially assessed data in a flexible way, creating a prediction at any desired moment poststroke, stand-alone or linked with an electronic health record system.

Indexed as

models, biostatistics, biomarkersoutcome measureprognosisstrokestroke unit, upper extremity

Identifiers

PMID33479046
PMCPMC8142441

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.