Ottawa Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to create guidelines for 13 types of physical rehabilitation interventions used in the management of adult patients (>18 years of age) presenting with hemiplegia or hemiparesis following a single clinically identifiable ischemic or hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident (CVA). METHOD: Using Cochrane Collaboration methods, the Ottawa Methods Group identified and synthesized evidence from comparative controlled trials. The group then formed an expert panel, which developed a set of criteria for grading the strength of the evidence and the recommendation. Patient-important outcomes were determined through consensus, provided that these outcomes were assessed with a validated and reliable scale. RESULTS: The Ottawa Panel developed 147 positive recommendations of clinical benefit concerning the use of different types of physical rehabilitation interventions involved in post-stroke rehabilitation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The Ottawa Panel recommends the use of therapeutic exercise, task-oriented training, biofeedback, gait training, balance training, constraint-induced movement therapy, treatment of shoulder subluxation, electrical stimulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, therapeutic ultrasound, acupuncture, and intensity and organization of rehabilitation in the management of post stroke.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".