Observational studyNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2026
The Accuracy of the PREP2 Prediction Tool for Upper Limb Outcomes After Stroke as Part of Routine Clinical Care.
Observational study in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- TMS-Derived Neurophysiological Measures of Corticospinal Excitability, Intracortical Excitability, and Interhemispheric Interactions Associated With Post-Stroke Motor Recovery: A Systematic Review.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
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
BackgroundThe Predict REcovery Potential-2 (PREP2) prediction tool uses clinical assessments and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) within 1 week post-stroke to predict individuals' upper limb functional outcome at 3 months (3M) post-stroke. PREP2 was successfully implemented in clinical care at Auckland City Hospital, New Zealand in 2017.ObjectiveThe primary aim was to evaluate the accuracy of PREP2 predictions made by clinicians during routine clinical care, with a threshold of 70% accuracy for validation. A secondary aim was to identify new baseline predictors that could increase PREP2 accuracy.MethodsEighty-three patients who received PREP2 predictions were recruited within 1 week of stroke and had their upper limb outcome assessed at 3M post-stroke with the Action Research Arm Test. Cognition and sensation were evaluated within 1 week of stroke.ResultsOverall accuracy of the PREP2 prediction tool in clinical practice was 66% (95% confidence interval, 55%-76%). Accuracy was highest for the Excellent (80%) and Poor (100%) categories and lowest for the Good category (36%). Prediction accuracy for Good outcomes was 67% for patients who did not require TMS and 27% for patients who did. Finger extension differentiated participants predicted to have a Good outcome using TMS who did and did not have a favorable upper limb outcome.ConclusionsExcellent and Poor predictions are highly accurate when used in clinical practice, however the full PREP2 tool is not yet validated in clinical practice. Future studies with larger samples could investigate additional measures to enhance accuracy of the Good prediction category.Clinical trial registration number ACTRN12619000225112, https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12619000225112.
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.