The Impact of Increased Duration of Exercise Therapy on Functional Recovery Following Stroke — What Is the Evidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the impact of increased duration of exercise therapy on functional recovery after stroke. A comprehensive literature search using multiple databases was used to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials. Their quality was reviewed by two independent assessors, and a narrative systematic review and meta-analysis was completed. Methodological quality of all the 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified had a median of 6 points (range 5-8) on the 10-point PEDro scale. A meta-analysis was completed for studies that had a common outcome measure. For each outcome measure, the estimated effect size (ES) and the summary effect size (SES) were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD). The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that increased duration of exercise therapy time has a small but positive effect on activities of daily living as measured by the Barthel Index (SES 0.13; CI 0.01-0.25; Z = 2.15; p = .03) and that these improvements are maintained over a 6-month period (SES 0.15; CI 0.05-0.26; Z = 2.8; p = .00). Pooling reported differences in the various upper and lower extremity outcome measures demonstrated no significant SESs. However, the meta-analysis is supportive of the hypothesis that additional, focused exercise on the lower extremity has a favourable effect on lower extremity impairment and walking speed. The narrative review raises a number of issues that need to be considered in the development of future RCTs.
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 | 0.021 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".