ArticleBrain sciences2023
Outcome Measures Utilized to Assess the Efficacy of Telerehabilitation for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.
Article in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Towards a Closed-Loop Bioengineering Framework for Immersive VR-Based Telerehabilitation Integrating Wearable Biosensing and Adaptive Feedback.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOutcome measures using telerehabilitation (TR) in the context of post-stroke rehabilitation are an area of emerging research. The current review assesses the literature related to TR for patients requiring post-stroke rehabilitation. The purpose of this study is to survey the outcome measures used in TR studies and to define which parts of the International Organization of Functioning are measured in trials.
methodsTR studies were searched in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) from 2016 to June 2023. Two reviewers individually assessed the full text. Discrepancies regarding inclusion or exclusion were resolved by an additional reviewer.
resultsA total of 24 studies were included in the current review. The findings were synthesized and presented taking into account their implications within clinical practice, areas of investigation, and strategic implementation.
conclusionsThe scoping review has recognized a broad range of outcome measures utilized in TR studies, shedding light on gaps in the current literature. Furthermore, this review serves as a valuable resource for researchers and end users (such as clinicians and policymakers), providing insights into the most appropriate outcome measures for TR. There is a lack of studies examining the required follow-up after TR, emphasizing the need for future research in this area.
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.