Assessment of participation outcomes in randomized controlled trials of stroke rehabilitation interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the importance of understanding the impact of interventions on an individual's ability to participate in social roles after a stroke event has gained much attention. Comprehensive assessment of treatment effectiveness should include a broader range of outcomes, including social participation. This study attempted to determine the degree to which the assessment of social participation has been included in randomized controlled trials of stroke rehabilitation. An extensive literature search was used to identify all randomized controlled trials from 1968 to 2005. Assessment scales used to evaluate study outcomes were recorded and classified based on the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Studies citing assessment of more than one ICF component were identified. In total, 1447 outcomes were assessed using 489 measurement scales and were cited in 491 identified trials. Both number of studies and assessment of participation outcomes increased over time. Participation assessments accounted for less than 6% of all measurement citations. Around 56.8% of studies reported multicomponent assessment. Of these, 25% included assessment at the level of ICF Participation. In conclusion, the vast body of work within the areas of impairment and function is a cornerstone for rehabilitation. This is certainly reflected in the recorded measurement citations. Despite increasing awareness and a significant increase in participation assessment, relatively few studies include assessment at this level, thereby limiting our understanding with regard to the impact of rehabilitation interventions on more complex areas of social participation.
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 | 0.317 | 0.625 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".