ArticlePhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2025
Upper Limb Function 3 Months Post-Stroke: How Accurate Are Physiotherapist Predictions?
Article in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA frequent sequela of stroke is upper limb (UL) impairment. Accurate UL function prognosis is crucial for targeted rehabilitation.
objectiveTo determine the accuracy of physiotherapists' predictions of UL function and investigate whether prediction accuracy is affected by physiotherapists' seniority within rehabilitation and/or their level of education. Physiotherapist predictions were compared with a prediction algorithm.
methodsData from 81 patients were included. Two weeks post-stroke, physiotherapists predicted UL function based on clinical reasoning. ARAT scores (poor, limited, good, or excellent) at 3 months post-stroke served to determine prediction accuracy. Prediction accuracy was calculated as correct classification rate (CCR). Logistic regression was used to explore the effect of seniority and education. McNemar's test was applied to compare physiotherapist predictions to an algorithm applied 2 weeks post-stroke to the same patients.
resultsThe overall correct classification rate (CCR) of physiotherapist predictions was 41% (95% CI: 30-51). Predictions were most accurate for the excellent (75%) and poor (71%) categories, but lower for limited (22%) and good (30%). No association was observed between prediction accuracy and physiotherapist seniority or education. There was a tendency, but not a statistically significant superiority, in the prediction accuracy of the algorithm compared to the physiotherapist predictions (Odds ratio 2 [95% CI: 0.96-4.39], McNemar p = 0.0455, exact McNemar p = 0.0652).
trial registrationProject number: 628213.
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.