Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34177780›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2021

Predictive Value of Upper Extremity Outcome Measures After Stroke-A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis.

Silke Wolf, Christian Gerloff, Winifried Backhaus

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

Silke WolfExperimental Electrophysiology and Neuroimaging (xENi), Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Christian GerloffExperimental Electrophysiology and Neuroimaging (xENi), Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Winifried BackhausExperimental Electrophysiology and Neuroimaging (xENi), Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A better understanding of motor recovery after stroke requires large-scale, longitudinal trials applying suitable assessments. Currently, there is an abundance of upper limb assessments used to quantify recovery. How well various assessments can describe upper limb function change over 1 year remains uncertain. A uniform and feasible standard would be beneficial to increase future studies' comparability on stroke recovery. This review describes which assessments are common in large-scale, longitudinal stroke trials and how these quantify the change in upper limb function from stroke onset up to 1 year. A systematic search for well-powered stroke studies identified upper limb assessments classifying motor recovery during the initial year after a stroke. A metaregression investigated the association between assessments and motor recovery within 1 year after stroke. Scores from nine common assessments and 4,433 patients were combined and transformed into a standardized recovery score. A mixed-effects model on recovery scores over time confirmed significant differences between assessments (

Indexed as

metaregressionmotor assessmentsmotor functionmotor recoverymotor rehabilitationstrokeupper limb

Identifiers

PMID34177780
PMCPMC8222610

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.