Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38079007›Full record

ReviewPsychological research2024

A commentary on Eaves et al. with a special focus on clinical neurorehabilitation.

Corina Schuster-Amft, Frank Behrendt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Corina Schuster-AmftResearch Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Rheinfelden, Switzerland.
Frank BehrendtResearch Department, Reha Rheinfelden, Rheinfelden, Switzerland. frank.behrendt@unibas.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We very much appreciate the theoretical foundations and considerations of AO, MI, and their combination AO + MI by Eaves et al. In their exploratory review, the authors highlight the beneficial effects of the combined use of AO and MI, with a particular focus on synchronous AO and MI. From a neurorehabilitation perspective, different processes may apply to patients, particularly after a stroke. As suggested by Eaves et al., the cognitive load might prevent the use of synchronous AO + MI and the asynchronous application of AO and MI might be indicated. Furthermore, some aspects should be considered when applying AO + MI in rehabilitation: screening for the patients' cognitive capabilities and MI ability, and a familiarisation programme for AO and MI, before starting with an AO + MI training. With their review, Eaves et al. propose a number of research questions in the field of neurorehabilitation that urgently need to be addressed: the use of asynchronous vs. synchronous AOMI, observation and imagination with or without errors, or use of different MI perspectives and modes in different learning stages. This commentary provides some additional suggestions on patients' MI ability and cognitive level, MI familiarisation and detailed reporting recommendations to transfer Eaves et al. findings into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Neurological RehabilitationHumansStroke Rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID38079007
PMCPMC11315782

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.