ArticleClinical rehabilitation2026
Standardisation in acute stroke research: A scoping review of upper limb assessments against Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) benchmarks.
Article in Clinical rehabilitation, 2026. 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.
- Stroke recovery beyond initial severity: the complementary roles of brain structure and brain function in acute stroke.Brain communications · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
ObjectiveTo examine how well acute stroke studies assessing upper limb sensorimotor capacity align with the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) recommendations, focussing on the type of assessment tools used, study and participant characteristics, follow-up timings, and the use of clinical and multimodal data.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesEmbase, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies published between 01 August 2017 and 30 September 2025.MethodsThis review included studies involving adults with stroke who underwent upper limb assessment during the acute phase. Data were extracted on clinical, structural, and functional assessments, as well as follow-up timing, study, and participant characteristics. Of the 3628 identified articles, 132 met the inclusion criteria.ResultsWhile global assessments (e.g. NIH stroke scale [NIHSS]) and impairment-level upper limb assessments (e.g. Upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment) were widely used, activity-level tools (e.g. Action Research Arm Test) were underrepresented. Structural brain imaging was common, though often used only diagnostically, while functional brain imaging and multimodal approaches were rare. Follow-up timing varied, with limited long-term tracking. Demographic reporting was inconsistent, with underrepresentation of young adults and women.ConclusionDespite progress, significant gaps remain in the standardisation and comprehensiveness of upper limb assessment in acute stroke research. Future studies should better align with SRRR recommendations to improve data comparability and scientific rigour.
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.