ReviewBrain & NeuroRehabilitation2023
Comparing the Effectiveness of Physical Rehabilitation Interventions for Post-Stroke Function and Mobility Recovery: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Brain & NeuroRehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of different exercise interventions on motor function in patients at different post-stroke recovery phases: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Neurological Physiotherapy Interventions in Post-stroke Motor Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
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
Various interventions to physical rehabilitation have been used after stroke, including musculoskeletal, neurophysiological, and motor learning interventions, with ongoing debates and controversies about their relative effectiveness. In this systematic review, we searched 3 international electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) to identify relevant studies. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared motor relearning, neurophysiological, and musculoskeletal interventions for improving motor function in adult stroke patients. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was performed using Cochrane's RoB tool, and meta-analysis was conducted using Revman 5.4 with a random effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations method. The meta-analysis for immediate outcome for physical rehabilitation included 9 RCTs for balance, 10 RCTs for gait velocity, 7 RCTs for lower extremity motor function and 8 RCTs for performance of activities of daily living. There was no statistically significant different on improvement of balance, gait velocity, lower extremity motor function and performance of activity among physical rehabilitation interventions. Moderate-level evidence supports that no single intervention is superior. Clinicians and therapist should consider individual patient characteristics, preferences, and available resources when selecting the intervention for stroke 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.