MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4294991966 · doi:10.2196/38956

Effectiveness of Neurodynamic Interventions in Patients With Stroke: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4294991966 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abubeker Alebachew Seid, Abdulkerim Hassen Moloro

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisProtocol (science)Stroke (engine)Psychological interventionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineSystematic reviewPsychologyPhysical therapyMEDLINEComputer scienceAlternative medicineEngineeringPsychiatryPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Stroke is the most common and serious neurological condition, which can lead to death, limited functionality, and reduced quality of life. Studies with conflicting results and various methodological limitations have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of neurodynamic interventions for patients with stroke. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the pooled effectiveness of different neurodynamic interventions on patients with stroke. METHODS: The PubMed, PEDro, and Google Scholar databases will be searched for studies published with full text in the English language from inception to date. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of different neurodynamic techniques on patients with stroke will be included. The primary outcome measures will include pain, disability/function, and quality of life. Secondary outcome measures will include physical performance measures such as balance, range of motion, muscle strength, and specific diagnostic and neurodynamic test outcomes. The screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment will be performed by two independent reviewers. The PEDro scale will be used to systematically appraise the methodological quality. Review Manager V.5.4 software will be used for statistical analysis. Weighted mean difference or standardized mean difference with 95% CIs and P values will be used to calculate the treatment effect for each outcome variable. RESULTS: Search terms and search databases have been identified. The data extraction sheet has also been developed. This study is expected to be completed by the end of 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness and use of neurodynamic interventions for patients with stroke in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022319972; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=319972. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/38956.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.036
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.346
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→