ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2026
Consumer Priorities for Upper-Extremity Outcome Assessments.
Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify which upper-extremity outcome measures stroke survivors and caregivers consider meaningful and acceptable. Design: Cross-sectional online survey. Setting: Community-based survey distributed through stroke organizations and social media. Participants: Thirty respondents (27 stroke survivors, 3 caregivers); median age 64 years (interquartile range=18); median 3.1 years post stroke (interquartile range=6.1). Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Participants rated their familiarity with, perceived relevance of, and preferences for 15 outcome assessments used to measure upper-extremity recovery. They also ranked preferences for timing, frequency, location, and duration of assessments in a hypothetical clinical trial. Results: Participants most valued clinician-assessed impairment measures (eg, range of motion, strength; 76.7%), task-oriented upper-extremity activity measures (70%), and movement analysis using sensors (66.7%). Measures reflecting neurophysiology or biological mechanisms (eg, biomarkers, transcranial magnetic stimulation) were perceived as less meaningful, particularly among participants with limited prior exposure to these measures. The Motor Assessment Scale, movement sensors, and range-of-motion assessments received higher relevance ratings than dexterity measures, such as the Box and Block Test and the 9-Hole Peg Test. In a hypothetical trial, weekly assessments during the intervention phase (63.0%) were preferred, with in-person assessment sessions, either in hospital outpatient clinics or at home, being the most acceptable. The preferred session duration for outcome assessment was 30-60 minutes; assessments with sessions ≥3 hours were the least acceptable. Conclusions: Stroke survivors and caregivers prioritize upper-extremity impairment and activity-based upper-extremity assessments and prefer frequent, shorter, in‑person evaluations. Incorporating consumer preferences into clinical care and trial design may enhance the relevance, acceptability, and engagement of stroke survivors in future upper‑limb rehabilitation research.
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.