Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42454985›Full record

ReviewNeuroRehabilitation2026

Applications of ICF-Based Assessments and Interventions in Post-Stroke Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review.

Mabel N K Wong, Chetwyn Che Hin Chan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mabel N K WongDepartment of Psychology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8160-2921
Chetwyn Che Hin ChanDepartment of Psychology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0307-6337

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Disability EvaluationInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthStrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansassessmentcommunity (re)integrationindependent livingneurorehabilitationquality of lifestroke

Identifiers

PMID42454985
PMCPMC13507500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.