Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38482101›Full record

ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2024

External Validation of a Dynamic Prediction Model for Upper Limb Function After Stroke.

Iris C Brunner, Eleni-Rosalina Andrinopoulou, Ruud Selles, Camilla Biering Lundquist, Asger Roer Pedersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. STROKEVISION-BENCH: A MULTIMODAL VIDEO AND 2D POSE BENCHMARK FOR TRACKING STROKE RECOVERY.IEEE International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing : [proceedings]. IEEE International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing
    Article
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

5 authors.

Iris C BrunnerHammel Neurorehabilitation Centre and University Research Clinic, Hammel, Denmark.
Eleni-Rosalina AndrinopoulouDepartment of Biostatistics, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Ruud SellesDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Camilla Biering LundquistHammel Neurorehabilitation Centre and University Research Clinic, Hammel, Denmark.
Asger Roer PedersenUniversity Research Clinic for Innovative Patient Pathways, Diagnostic Centre, Silkeborg Regional Hospital, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To externally validate the dynamic prediction model for prediction of upper limb (UL) function 6 months after stroke. The dynamic prediction model has been developed and cross-validated on data from 4 Dutch studies. Design: Data from a prospective Danish cohort study were used to assess prediction accuracy. Setting: A Danish neurorehabilitation hospital. Participants: In this external validation study, follow-up data for 80 patients in the subacute phase after stroke (N=80), mean age 64 (SD11), 43% women, could be obtained. They were assessed at 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after stroke with the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment upper limb (FMA), and Shoulder Abduction (SA) Finger Extension (FE), (SAFE) test. Intervention: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Prediction accuracy at 6 months was examined for 3 categories of ARAT (0-57 points): mild (48-57), moderate (23-47), and severe (0-22). Two individual predictions of ARAT scores at ±6 months post-stroke were computed based on, respectively, baseline (2 weeks) and 3 months ARAT, FE, SA values. The absolute individual differences between observed and predicted ARAT scores were summarized. Results: The prediction model performed best for patients with relatively good UL motor function, with an absolute error median (IQR) of 3 (2-9), and worst for patients with severe UL impairment, with a median (IQR) of 30 (3-39) at baseline. In general, prediction accuracy substantially improved when data obtained 3 months after stroke was included compared with baseline at 2 weeks after stroke. Conclusion: We found limited clinical usability due to the lack of prediction accuracy 2 weeks after stroke and for patients with severe UL impairments. The dynamic prediction model could probably be refined with data from biomarkers.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsNeurological rehabilitationStrokeUpper limb

Identifiers

PMID38482101
PMCPMC10928273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.