ReviewBrain sciences2022
After 55 Years of Neurorehabilitation, What Is the Plan?
Review in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes of rehabilitation with a robotic anthropomorphic exoskeleton in patients with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2026Trial
- Neurorehabilitation for cognitive and motor recovery: mechanisms, interventions, and translational advances.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- At the Frontiers of Neurorehabilitation, Series II: Advancing Neurorehabilitation Through Patient-Centered Undogmatic Innovative Approaches.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Psycho-Neuroendocrinology in the Rehabilitation Field: Focus on the Complex Interplay between Stress and Pain.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Virtual environments as a novel and promising approach in (neuro)diagnosis and (neuro)therapy: a perspective on the example of autism spectrum disorder.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Breast Cancer: How Hippotherapy Bridges the Gap between Healing and Recovery-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Cancers · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neurological disorders often cause severe long-term disabilities with substantial activity limitations and participation restrictions such as community integration, family functioning, employment, social interaction and participation. Increasing understanding of brain functioning has opened new perspectives for more integrative interventions, boosting the intrinsic central nervous system neuroplastic capabilities in order to achieve efficient behavioral restitution. Neurorehabilitation must take into account the many aspects of the individual through a comprehensive analysis of actual and potential cognitive, behavioral, emotional and physical skills, while increasing awareness and understanding of the new self of the person being dealt with. The exclusive adoption by the rehabilitator of objective functional measures often overlooks the values and goals of the disabled person. Indeed, each individual has their own rhythm, unique life history and personality construct. In this challenging context, it is essential to deepen the assessment through subjective measures, which more adequately reflect the patient's perspective in order to shape genuinely tailored instead of standardized neurorehabilitation approaches. In this overly complex panorama, where confounding and prognostic factors also strongly influence potential functional recovery, the healthcare community needs to rethink neurorehabilitation formats.
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.