ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2026
Professional consensus on UK national statements of best practice for ways of working to deliver orthotic interventions after stroke: an eDelphi study.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo reach consensus on statements of best practice for ways of working to deliver orthotic interventions after stroke among expert professionals in the UK involved in the delivery of orthotic intervention to patients after stroke.
designA 2-round modified electronic Delphi exercise (eDelphi). SUBJECTS: Thirty-two orthotic professionals with 2 years' or more experience of delivering orthotic intervention within stroke rehabilitation, from varied geographical locations and experience levels participated in the eDelphi.
methodsFor the eDelphi exercise, 65 statements of best practice were assessed by participants. A 7-point Likert scale was used to determine agreement with statements. A consensus threshold of 75% was pre-determined in line with other studies.
resultsAfter the first round, consensus was reached for 62 of the statements. All statements had 75% or above agreement. An 87.5% retention rate was maintained between rounds. After the second round 64 statements of best practice achieved 75% consensus.
conclusionOverall consensus 94.3% was achieved on the first UK-wide professionally agreed statements of best practice detailing the optimal ways of working when delivering orthotic interventions to enhance rehabilitation outcomes and reduce complications for stroke survivors.
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.