ArticleNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2024
Accuracy and Reliability of Remote Categorization of Upper Limb Outcome After Stroke.
Article in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Remotely Assessing Motor Function and Activity of the Upper Extremity After Stroke: A Systematic Review of Validity and Clinical Utility of Tele-Assessments.Clinical rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- The Accuracy of the PREP2 Prediction Tool for Upper Limb Outcomes After Stroke as Part of Routine Clinical Care.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Observational
- A Compensatory-Topology and Relay-Gating Graph Network for multimodal stroke rehabilitation assessment.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Physiotherapist Online Assessment in Patients with Stroke: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Reliability, validity, and usability of an 18-item immersive virtual reality action research arm test: a validation study in stroke survivors.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing need for motor assessments after stroke that can be performed quickly and remotely. The Fast Outcome Categorization of the Upper Limb after Stroke-4 (FOCUS-4) assessment remotely classifies upper limb outcome into 1 of 4 categories after stroke and was developed via retrospective analysis of Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) scores.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy and reliability of FOCUS-4 assessments for categorizing upper limb outcome after stroke when administered remotely during a videocall compared to an in-person ARAT.
methodsData were collected from 26 participants at 3 months post-stroke (3M), 27 participants at 6 months post-stroke (6M), and 56 participants at the chronic stage of stroke (>6M). Participants performed an in-person ARAT and a remote FOCUS-4 assessment administered during a videocall, and accuracy was evaluated by comparing the upper limb outcome categories. Participants at the chronic stage of stroke also performed a second remote FOCUS-4 assessment to assess between-day reliability.
resultsOverall accuracy of the remote FOCUS-4 assessment was 88% at 3M and 96% at 6M. Overall accuracy of the first and second remote FOCUS-4 assessments at the chronic stage was 75% and 79%, respectively. Reliability of the FOCUS-4 assessment at the chronic stage was 82%. The remote FOCUS-4 assessment was most accurate and reliable for participants with mild or severe upper limb functional impairment.
conclusionsThe remote FOCUS-4 assessment has potential to classify upper limb functional capacity or to screen possible participants for stroke trials, but external validation is required.
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.