A systematic review of upper extremity outcome measures assessed in randomized controlled trials of post stroke upper extremity rehabilitation over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The heterogeneity in outcome measures of post stroke rehabilitation trials suggests the need for consensus approach in stroke recovery measurement. To reach this aim, it is important to understand the past and current use of outcome measures in randomized control trials (RCTs) of stroke rehabilitation.Objective To systematically review RCTs of post stroke UE rehabilitation interventions to understand the use of UE outcome measures in research and their changes over time.Methods CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from 1960 to 1 April 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (1) were RCTs or crossovers published in English (2) ≥50% of participants were affected by stroke, 3) included adults ≥ 18 years old, and (4) applied an intervention to the hemiparetic UE as the primary objective of the study.Results 1,276 RCTs met inclusion criteria, and 112 different outcome measures were identified. Outcome measures were classified according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Outcome measures most frequently assessed body function and structure (n = 1,692), followed by activities (n = 1,572) and participation (n = 162). The most used outcome measures were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (n = 619), the modified Ashworth Scale (n = 255), Action Research Arm Test (n = 211), Wolf Motor Function Test (n = 184), and Box and Block Test (n = 178).Conclusions Understanding the breadth of outcome measures that have been used over time emphasizes the need for proposed standardization of outcome measures but also the need to adjust and expand consensus recommendations based on past and ongoing research trends.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.269 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.037 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".