ArticleThe British journal of occupational therapy2023
Spanish consensus of occupational therapists on upper limb assessment tools in stroke.
Article in The British journal of occupational therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Noninvasive brain stimulation for upper limb motor activity in children and young adults with cerebral palsy and pediatric stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Combination of different noninvasive brain stimulation treatments for upper limb recovery in stroke patients: A systematic review.Brain and behavior · 2024Pooled it
- Advancing Neurological Rehabilitation: The BRAIN Framework for Clinical Reasoning in Neurophysiotherapy.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Spanish Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Wolf Motor Function Test for Survivors of Acquired Brain Injury.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is a lack of explicit tool recommendations for upper limb (UL) assessment in stroke, occupational therapists are frequently underrepresented in consensus studies, and the frequency of use of tools is highly variable between countries. The objective was to generate national occupational therapy consensus recommendations on UL assessment tools in stroke, and to classify the tools that achieve consensus according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) components. Methods: Three-round e-Delphi study of national scope. Occupational therapists working in Spain with training and experience in neurorehabilitation were recruited. Rounds were based on the completion of questionnaires on UL stroke assessment tools. Consensus was reached when ⩾75% of experts gave a ⩾7 rating on a nine-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 29 occupational therapists comprised the expert panel. Twenty-three (17.8%) assessment tools achieved consensus and were classified according to the ICF components of body functions and structures (7), activities (11), participation (3) and other (2). Conclusion: The expert panel recommended 23 outcome measures for UL recovery in stroke, representing all ICF components. The consensus recommendations are intended to assist occupational therapists in their clinical decision-making process, and to reduce the heterogeneity of research tools.
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.