ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Intensity is not time: reframing dose prescription in post-stroke neurorehabilitation.
Article 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 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.
- The pediatric Cogni-Famille protocol: family-mediated manual therapy achieves comparable outcomes at one-eighth cost in children with cerebral palsy-a franco-Cameroonian comparative study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Therapeutic scarification, shadow pain, and integrative geriatric rehabilitation for chronic musculoskeletal pain in older adults in Cameroon: a prospective mixed-methods observational study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Post-stroke neurorehabilitation remains predominantly prescribed according to session duration rather than biological effectiveness. However, converging evidence suggests that therapeutic intensity-defined as the density of neurofunctional stimulation per unit time-is the primary driver of neuroplastic adaptation and functional recovery. Objective: To synthesize contemporary evidence demonstrating the superiority of intensity-centered over duration-centered rehabilitation paradigms and to propose a pragmatic framework for clinical implementation across heterogeneous healthcare contexts. Methods: A structured synthesis of eleven contemporary studies (2010-2025) spanning randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and integrative frameworks was conducted. Interventions modulating intensity through repetition density, neurophysiological load, temporal compression, and patient engagement were compared across high-income technological settings and low-resource family-mediated models. Results: Across all paradigms, interventions delivering higher repetition density, greater neurophysiological demand, and temporal compression consistently yielded superior functional outcomes compared with duration-matched controls. These effects were independent of technological sophistication or resource availability. An operational formula, Conclusion: Rehabilitation efficacy depends less on cumulative time than on the biological potency of stimulation delivered per unit time. The proposed 3P Framework-Personalize, Progress, Prevent-offers a pragmatic and evidence-based pathway to translate intensity science into routine clinical practice across patient phenotypes and care systems.
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.