ArticleBMJ open2025
Motor learning principles reported in stroke trials of upper limb task-oriented training: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Noninvasive Brain-Computer Interface-Based Interventions for Upper Limb Rehabilitation in Poststroke Hemiplegia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Rehabilitation Nursing Care for Older Adults with Impaired Fine Motor Function: From Design to Validation.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUpper limb task-oriented training (UL-TOT) is a complex intervention in which practice conditions related to motor learning principles are applied to enhance upper limb motor recovery after stroke. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication guidelines suggest that detailed reporting of a complex intervention is essential in published studies. Therefore, this review aimed to determine the extent to which practice conditions related to motor learning principles were reported in UL-TOT stroke clinical trials.
methodsA comprehensive search was done using appropriate keywords in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases from 2000 to 2024. Two reviewers independently conducted title screening, abstract screening and full-text evaluation based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A third reviewer resolved the conflicts between the two reviewers during the screening process. Finally, the articles that fulfilled the criteria were included for data extraction.
results23 802 studies were retrieved, and 166 studies were retained. Practice conditions such as practice variability (98%), dosage (97%) and movement complexity (96%) were reported more frequently, task selection for practice (75%), challenging and progressive task practice (76%) were reported frequently, practice order (57%), practice distribution (51%), feedback type (44%) and timing (44%) were reported occasionally. Feedback frequency (37%) was reported rarely.
conclusionsPractice conditions such as practice variability, dosage, movement complexity, task selection, challenging and progressive task practice were reported consistently, while practice distribution, order and feedback were reported inconsistently. Developing a standard checklist for practice conditions related to motor learning principles can improve detailed reporting of practice conditions in future UL-TOT stroke clinical trials. This can help researchers replicate and reliably implement the intervention in specific populations and build on and create more effective interventions.
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.