Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Community Occupational Therapy for Stroke Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Trials of occupational therapy for stroke patients living in the community have varied in their findings. It is unclear why these discrepancies have occurred. METHODS: Trials were identified from searches of the Cochrane Library and other sources. The primary outcome measure was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) score at the end of intervention. Secondary outcome measures included the Barthel Index or the Rivermead ADL (Personal ADL), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), Nottingham Leisure Questionnaire (NLQ), and death. Data were analyzed using linear or logistic regression with a random effect for trial and adjustment for age, gender, baseline dependency, and method of follow-up. Subgroup analyses compared any occupational therapy intervention with control. RESULTS: We included 8 single-blind randomized controlled trials incorporating 1143 patients. Occupational therapy was associated with higher NEADL scores at the end of intervention (weighted mean difference [WMD], 1.30 points, 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.47 to 2.13) and higher leisure scores at the end of intervention (WMD, 1.51 points; 95% CI, 0.24 to 2.79). Occupational therapy emphasizing activities of daily living (ADL) was associated with improved end of intervention NEADL (WMD, 1.61 points; 95% CI, 0.72 to 2.49) and personal activities of daily living (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.91), but not NLQ. Leisure-based occupational therapy improved end of intervention NLQ (WMD, 1.96 points; 95% CI, 0.27 to 3.66) but not NEADL or PADL. CONCLUSIONS: Community occupational therapy significantly improved personal and extended activities of daily living and leisure activity in patients with stroke. Better outcomes were found with targeted interventions.
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 | 0.037 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".