Observational studyJournal of rehabilitation medicine2026
Comparison of the predictive value of upper limb somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials for functional recovery in subacute stroke: a retrospective study.
Observational study 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the prognostic value of somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials for upper limb functional recovery in patients with subacute stroke.
designRetrospective observational analysis. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: A total of 111 inpatients with subacute stroke who underwent upper limb somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials testing within 1 week of admission and completed a standardized rehabilitation programme.
methodsSomatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials were categorized as non-responsive, abnormal, or normal. Discharge outcomes included the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for upper limb, Box and Block Test, Functional Independence Measure, and Korean version of the modified Barthel Index. Mixed-effects models were applied to examine associations between somatosensory evoked potentials or motor evoked potentials status and discharge outcomes, adjusting for baseline score and admission duration, with patient ID as a random intercept. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's f 2.
resultsNormal somatosensory evoked potentials were associated with higher Functional Independence Measure and Korean version of the modified Barthel Index scores than non-responsive somatosensory evoked potentials, while abnormal somatosensory evoked potentials showed non-significant trends. For motor evoked potentials, the normal group showed higher Box and Block Test scores, and both abnormal and normal groups had higher Korean modified Barthel Index scores than non-responsive.
conclusionAdmission somatosensory evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials provide complementary prognostic information in subacute stroke rehabilitation.
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.