ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Clinical Evaluation of Different Treatment Strategies for Motor Recovery in Poststroke Rehabilitation during the First 90 Days.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability, Feasibility, and Effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Technologies to Promote Exercise in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Emerging Applications of Augmented and Mixed Reality Technologies in Motor Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessment of the effects of rehabilitation of hand function using a biometrics device in people after stroke - a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Ηand dexterities assessment in stroke patients based on augmented reality and machine learning through a box and block test.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Customized Manual Muscle Testing for Post-Stroke Upper Extremity Assessment.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- The Application of Biological Feedback in the Rehabilitation of Patients after Ischemic Stroke.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Wearable Mixed Reality Platform to Augment Overground Walking: A Feasibility Study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Serum BDNF's Role as a Biomarker for Motor Training in the Context of AR-Based Rehabilitation after Ischemic Stroke.Brain sciences · 2020Article
- Current status and advances in comprehensive treatment of acute ischemic stroke in China: from evidence-based guidelines to clinical practice.Frontiers in neurologyReview
- Early Individualized Approach for a Patient with Spasticity of Stroke Origin.Current health sciences journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMotor recovery after stroke is based on neuronal plasticity and the structural reorganization of the brain. Questions are debated about the proper moment to start rehabilitation in the acute period of stroke, the significance of rehabilitation interventions during the so-called "plastic window", and the advantages of modern and traditional programs. The aims of this study were to evaluate the role of different rehabilitation strategies and their combinations for motor recovery and the impact on functional disability by way of neurological and functional outcomes 3 months after ischemic stroke.
methodsWe used three rehabilitation approaches: early rehabilitation from the first day of stroke (Phase I), traditional exercise programs (Phase II), and an author's new method of biofeedback rehabilitation using motion sensors and augmented reality (AR) rehabilitation (Phase III). Clinical and functional outcomes were measured on the 90th day after stroke. We developed algorithms for quantifying the quality of movements during the execution of tasks in the motor domains of the AR rehabilitation program.
resultsPhase I of rehabilitation led to an improvement in functional independence, and the recovery of motor functions of the extremities with an absence of mortality and clinical deterioration. AR rehabilitation led to significant improvement both with respect to clinical and functional scores on scales and to variables reflecting the quality of movements. Patients who were actively treated during Phases II and III achieved the same final level of motor recovery and functional outcomes as that of participants who had only received AR rehabilitation during Phase III. Patients who underwent outpatient observation after Phase I showed a deficit of spontaneous motor recovery on the 90th day after stroke.
conclusionsEarly rehabilitation was successful but was not enough; rehabilitation programs should be carried out throughout the entire "sensitive period" of poststroke plasticity. The newly developed AR biofeedback motion training is effective and safe as a separate rehabilitation method in the early recovery period of moderately severe, hemiparalytic, and ischemic stroke. These two rehabilitation approaches must be applied together or after each other, not instead of each other, as shown in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.