Trial reportNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2024
Accuracy of Physiotherapist Predictions for Independent Walking After Stroke.
Trial report 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 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.
- Temporal External Validation of the TWIST Prediction Tool for Time to Independent Walking after Stroke.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of prediction tools in stroke rehabilitation research and clinical practice is increasing, but it is not clear whether these prediction tools out-perform clinician predictions.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare physiotherapist predictions for independent walking with the Time to Walking Independently after STroke (TWIST) prediction tool.
methodsAdults with new lower limb weakness and unable to walk independently (Functional Ambulation Category [FAC] < 4) were recruited. At 1 week post-stroke, the treating physiotherapist was asked to predict whether their patient would achieve independent walking by 4, 6, 9, 12, 16, or 26 weeks, or remain dependent. Predictions were also made using the TWIST prediction tool, but not shared. Binary logistic regressions were conducted with the time independent walking was achieved as the dependent variable and independent variables were the physiotherapist and TWIST predictions.
resultsNinety-one participants were included (median age 71 years, 36 [40%] female). Most participants (67 [74%]) were non-ambulatory (FAC = 0) at 1-week post-stroke. Thirty-seven physiotherapists were recruited. Physiotherapists made accurate predictions for time taken to achieve independent walking for 39 participants (43%). Prediction accuracy was not related to physiotherapist confidence or years of stroke-specific experience. TWIST out-performed physiotherapist predictions (Physiotherapists 76%-77%, TWIST 86%-88% accurate) for participants who achieved independent walking by 4, 6, and 9 weeks post-stroke. Accuracy of physiotherapist and TWIST predictions was similar for 16 and 26 weeks post-stroke.
conclusionsThe TWIST prediction tool is more accurate than physiotherapists at predicting whether a patient will achieve independent walking by 4, 6, or 9 weeks post-stroke, but not for 16 or 26 weeks post-stroke. TWIST may be useful to inform early rehabilitation and discharge planning. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: www.anzctr.org.au Unique Identifier: ACTRN12617001434381.
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.