ReviewBrain sciences2024
Standardizing Domains and Metrics of Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review.
Review in Brain sciences, 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.
- Interpreting patient-reported outcomes after ischemic stroke: defining minimal important difference in EQ-5D across recovery phases.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMeasuring stroke recovery poses a significant challenge, given the complexity of the recovery process. We aimed to identify a standardized and data-driven set of metrics of stroke rehabilitation in the literature that ensures the inclusion of all recovery domains and subdomains in the literature.
methodsA systematic review was conducted by four reviewers using the PRISMA guidelines on PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase for stroke recovery articles between 2004 and 2024. The inclusion criteria comprised experimental/observational studies, including ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. All studies had ≥20 participants who were ≥18 years of age, and had a follow-up of ≥3 months. Outcomes included demographics, geographic origin, stroke mechanism, domains and subdomains, metrics used, and follow-up. A bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024551753).
resultsOur search included 324 studies with a sample of 85,156 participants. The study identified seven domains (perception, physical and motor function (PF), speech and language (S&L), cognition, activities of daily living (ADL), quality of life (QoL), and social interaction) and 96 constituent subdomains that encompass the complete landscape of the stroke recovery literature identified. The domains of PF and ADL constituted the vast share of the literature, albeit reducing in their relative representation over time, while domains such as perception and QoL have been increasingly studied since 2004. Using the domains, the study identified the set and frequency of all commonly used metrics to measure stroke recovery in the literature, of which the NIHSS (
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.