Time to Rethink Long-Term Rehabilitation Management of Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has long been assumed that stroke patients plateau in their recovery within 3 to 6 months of their stroke, and evidence for rehabilitation during the chronic stage is limited. As a consequence, rehabilitation resources for the management of chronic stroke are minimal. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) across the continuum of stroke rehabilitation for interventions initiated 6 months or more following the onset of stroke. The secondary objective was to determine whether treatments provided post 6 moths are effective in improving outcomes among stroke survivors. METHODS: Multiple databases were used to identify all RCTs published from 1970 to June 2012 in English language where the stroke interventions were initiated more than 6 months after the onset of the stroke. Data abstraction was performed using standardized data abstraction form that included general citation information, study participant characteristics, methodology, outcomes accessed, and overall findings. RESULTS: The results of our analysis revealed 339 RCTs. The mean number of subjects per study was 73. Two hundred fifty-six RCTs were related to motor recovery, 39 to cognitive function, and only 19 to psychosocial issues and community reintegration. The majority of the RCT s demonstrated a significant positive benefit. CONCLUSIONS: There is a robust evidence-base for stroke rehabilitation interventions in chronic stroke. This research synthesis reveals a paradox, whereby an impressive evidence-base contrasts with the limited optimism and resources available for rehabilitation in chronic 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 | 0.053 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".