MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevalence, Trajectory, and Factors Associated With Patient-Reported Nonmotor Outcomes After Stroke

2025· review· en· W4407836886 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hatice Özkan, Gareth Ambler, Taniya Esmail, Gargi Banerjee, Robert Simister, David J. Werring

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Depression (economics)Funnel plotProspective cohort studyMeta-analysisAnxietyPhysical therapyInternal medicinePublication biasPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The evidence on nonmotor outcomes after acute ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is limited and domain-specific. The prevalence, natural history, and factors associated with nonmotor outcomes across multiple domains are unclear. Objective: To synthesize the published data and to identify the prevalence, natural history, and factors associated with multidomain nonmotor outcome burden in patients with stroke. Data Sources: A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases between January 1999 to June 2023 was supplemented by search of bibliographies of the key articles. Study Selection: The analysis included prospective cohort studies that reported nonmotor outcomes across 10 domains: anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, social participation, pain, bladder dysfunction, bowel dysfunction (constipation and fecal incontinence), and sexual dysfunction assessed by patient-reported scales. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently assessed studies, extracting baseline data, nonmotor prevalence, and follow-up information. Pooled prevalence of nonmotor outcomes was estimated using random-effects models. Meta-regression models were used to analyze natural history and factors associated with nonmotor outcomes. Subgroup analysis was used to assess prevalence by symptom description within each nonmotor domain. Publication bias and study quality were assessed using funnel plots and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: A total of 279 prospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria (117 440 participants with stroke; median [IQR] age, 65 [59-70] years; 209 of 279 studies with more male than female participants) with a nonmotor outcome follow-up period ranging from 30 days to 10 years after stroke. The most prevalent adverse nonmotor outcomes by pooled prevalence were sleep disturbance (59.9%; 95% CI, 53.9%-63.9%), sexual dysfunction (59.8%; 95% CI, 50.0%-69.5%), constipation (58.2%; 95% CI, 53.9%-62.6%), reduced social participation (56.5%; 95% CI, 52.1%-60.8%), bladder dysfunction (45.9%; 95% CI, 38.0%-53.8%), and fatigue (45.2%; 95% CI, 40.7%-49.5%). Meta-regression analysis showed no significant improvement over time for most nonmotor outcomes, except pain (coefficient = -11.0%; P = .05) and sexual dysfunction (coefficient = -24.1%; P < .001). The heterogeneity ranged between 52% and 98% across all studies. The common factors associated with adverse nonmotor outcomes were female sex, studies with mixed stroke cohort (ischemic stroke or ICH), and older age. Conclusions and Relevance: Patient-reported nonmotor outcomes were common after stroke. Sexual dysfunction, sleep disturbance, constipation, reduced social participation, bladder dysfunction, and fatigue were most prevalent. These adverse outcomes often persisted over time, especially in women, older adults, and those in studies with mixed stroke cohorts.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207