ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Does more rehabilitation lead to better upper limb outcomes after stroke? A systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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.
- Evaluation of an intensive, private, community, upper limb rehabilitation program for people with chronic stroke: a mixed methods case series.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether increased rehabilitation duration improved upper-limb outcomes in people with subacute and chronic stroke. Where possible, we explored evidence for dose-response relationship or a ceiling effect for recovery. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycInfo. Randomised trials delivering the same type of upper-limb rehabilitation, but with a > 50% greater duration in one group (high dose) compared to another (low dose) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Meta-analyses explored effects of increased rehabilitation duration and subgroup analyses explored a 50%-100%, 100%-150% and ≥200% increases in dose. Results: Four studies ( Conclusion: Greater rehabilitation duration can lead to better upper-limb outcomes; however, an increase of at least 200% in duration might be required. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024604104.
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.