ArticleNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2026
Standardized International Manual of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Function After Stroke.
Article 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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Virtual Reality-Based Task-Oriented Training for Enhancing Motor Function and Activities of Daily Living in Patients With Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Trial
- From Metrics to Meaning in Neurological Rehabilitation: Clinicians' Perspectives on Digital Metrics of Upper Limb Functioning-A Focus Group Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundFugl-Meyer Assessment of upper and lower extremity is the recommended primary clinical outcome measure of motor function in stroke rehabilitation. However, variations between different manuals undermine the reliability of the assessment, making it difficult to compare results and pool data across trials and centers.ObjectiveTo develop a consensus-based international Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) manual aligned with the original assessment along with agreed recommendations for assessor training. Additionally, the study aims to provide a critical review of current evidence on the measurement properties.MethodsFourteen experienced health professionals and expert FMA users, working in 3 different continents, 6 countries and 13 research centers, participated in an iterative consensus process to generate a comprehensive agreed FMA manual. Agreement of at least 75% determined by voting was the minimum accepted threshold for each section of the manual. Consensus on assessor training was also sought. The evidence on measurement properties was compiled through a systematic literature review.ResultsGreater than 79% agreement was reached for each section of the final FMA manual. Assessors should have strong foundation in neurorehabilitation and clinical assessment. Novice assessors should undergo structured training including supervised practical training with patients to ensure consistent and accurate scoring. Previous research adherent to the original FMA assessment, confirms strong validity and reliability, but provide limited information of minimal clinically important difference thresholds.ConclusionsThis internationally agreed manual provides a common ground for improved consistency in administration of FMA worldwide and thereby will enable reliable data pooling and increase the comparability of results in future trials and clinical practice.
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.