ReviewNeuroRehabilitation2026
Applications of ICF-Based Assessments and Interventions in Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review.
Review in NeuroRehabilitation, 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
BackgroundThe International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is widely used as a framework for post-stroke rehabilitation, but its clinical application requires further synthesis.ObjectiveThis narrative review examined the current applications of ICF in post-stroke rehabilitation, benchmarked against the United Kingdom Stroke Guideline (UK Guideline).MethodsThe review followed the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles. ICF-based assessments and interventions described by the original study authors from selected studies were extracted.ResultsA total of 546 assessments were mapped to the ICF across 166 studies, overlapping with more than 80% of the UK Guideline topics. These assessments appeared to be primarily Body Function-based (40.7%) and Activity-based (27.1%). For ICF-based interventions, 247 interventions were identified across 66 studies and covered fewer than half of the UK Guideline topics. Mapping based on intervention content covered 36% of the combined Activity and Participation component. Both assessment and intervention mapping allocated less attention to the Participation component and Contextual Factors (CF), indicating limited specificity to community reintegration after stroke.ConclusionsTo promote the holistic ICF framework in post-stroke rehabilitation, more work is needed to address the assessment-intervention mismatch in current practice, particularly for Participation and CF. Resources, such as clinician training and service-level support, should also be mobilized to support the routine clinical application of the ICF.
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.