Are Recommendations Regarding Inpatient Therapy Intensity Following Acute Stroke Really Evidence-Based?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recommendations regarding the daily minimum dose of therapy that patients should receive following stroke are included in many clinical practice guidelines. We examined the related literature to determine whether a specific evidence-based recommendation could be supported. METHOD: Six clinical practice guidelines were retrieved and examined to determine what recommendation, if any, had been made regarding the daily provision of therapy during inpatient rehabilitation. All studies cited by the guideline authors to support their recommendations were identified and retrieved. Studies in which treatment was (a) focused on motor recovery, (b) initiated during inpatient rehabilitation, and (c) provided within 3 months of stroke onset were reviewed in greater detail. RESULTS: Three of the 6 identified guidelines recommended daily minimum amounts of therapy, ranging from 45 to 60 minutes each day of occupational (OT) and physiotherapy (PT), and 3 made general statements indicating that increased intensity of therapy was either recommended or was not recommended. Among the 6 guidelines, 37 studies had been cited to support the recommendations. Of these, 15 were reviewed in detail. On average, patients in the control condition received 48 minutes of therapy per day while those in the experimental group received 63% more, or 78 minutes per day. Patients in the experimental group performed significantly better on the primary outcome in only 5 (33%) studies. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the evidence base cannot support a specific recommendation related to therapy intensity during inpatient rehabilitation following 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 | 0.072 | 0.407 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".