SynthesisClinical rehabilitation2023
Dose, Content, and Context of Usual Care in Stroke Upper Limb Motor Interventions: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Clinical rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of brain-computer interface-coupled robotic rehabilitation, robot-assisted therapy, and motor imagery for upper-limb motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of motor imagery augmented with central non-invasive brain stimulation versus peripheral electrical stimulation for upper extremity rehabilitation post-stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Motor Rehabilitation Provides Modest Functional Benefits After Intracerebral Hemorrhage: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Translational Rehabilitation Studies.Translational stroke research · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of a soft robotic exoskeleton for upper-limb rehabilitation in subacute stroke inpatient rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Effects of semi-independent bedside rehabilitation of the upper limb assisted with a mobile wrist-hand exoneuromusculoskeleton (ENMS) for inpatients with subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial (RCT).Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- AGREE: an upper limb motorized exoskeleton for restoring arm functions: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Unsupervised robot-assisted rehabilitation after stroke: feasibility, effect on therapy dose, and user experience.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Trial
- Feasibility Evaluation of a Novel Bilateral Hand and Finger Training Device in Patients with Hand Dysfunction: A Preliminary Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Upper-Limb Motor Recovery in the Late Subacute Phase After Stroke: A Single-Case Experimental Study of Robot-Assisted Therapy, rTMS, and Intensive Training for Upper-Limb Rehabilitation in the First Year After Stroke Using Modern Treatment Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Bridging Research and Practice: A Preliminary Detailed Analysis of Current Upper Limb Occupational Therapy Dose and Content in Publicly Funded Poststroke Rehabilitation.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Article
- Article
- The Feasibility and User Experience of a Program of Progressive Cued Activity to Promote Functional Upper Limb Activity in the Inpatient Rehabilitation Setting with Follow-Up at Home.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Considerations for developing complex post-stroke upper limb behavioural interventions: An international qualitative study.Clinical rehabilitation · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objectives of this systematic review were to describe the current dose and content of usual care upper limb motor intervention for inpatients following stroke and examine if context factors alter dose and content. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search (EMBASE, MEDLINE) was completed from January 2015 to February 2023 (PROSPERO CRD42021281986).
methodsStudies were eligible if they reported non-protocolised usual care upper limb motor intervention dose data for stroke inpatients. Studies were rated using the Johanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Data were descriptively reported for dose dimensions of time (on task or, in therapy) and intensity (repetitions, repetition/minute), content (intervention type/mode), and context (e.g., severity strata).
resultsEight studies were included from four countries, largely reflecting inpatient rehabilitation. Time in therapy ranged from 23 to 121 min/day. Time on task ranged from 8 to 44 min/day. Repetitions ranged from 36 to 57/session, and 15 to 282/day. Time on task was lowest in the stratum of people with severe upper limb impairment (8 min/day), the upper limit for this stratum was 41.5 min/day. There was minimal reporting of usual care content across all studies.
conclusionUpper limb motor intervention dose appears to be increasing in usual care compared to prior reports (e.g., average 21 min/day and 23 to 32 repetitions/session). Context variability suggests that doses are lowest in the stratum of patients with a severely impaired upper limb. Consistent reporting of the multiple dimensions of dose and content is necessary to better understand usual care offered during inpatient rehabilitation.
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.