Effectiveness Of Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation In Stroke Recovery: Integrating Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, And Cognitive Therapy- Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Stroke is a leading global cause of long-term disability, often resulting in impairments that affect motor function, cognition, and communication. Traditional rehabilitation approaches frequently focus on isolated therapies, yet growing evidence supports the integration of multidisciplinary care. Despite this, the effectiveness of combined physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and cognitive or speech therapy remains inconsistently evaluated across literature, warranting a systematic review to clarify its clinical utility. Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation—specifically integrating physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and cognitive or speech therapy—in improving functional, cognitive, and communicative outcomes in adult stroke survivors. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for studies published between 2012 and 2024. Inclusion criteria covered randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and qualitative research involving post-stroke adults undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Studies not in English, those focusing on single-modality therapy, or involving animal subjects were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were extracted using a standardized form, and results were synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity in outcome measures. Results: Nine studies met inclusion criteria. Most reported significant improvements in balance, fine motor skills, activities of daily living, and communication when multidisciplinary rehabilitation was implemented. One trial showed a 91% improvement across multiple functional domains, while others highlighted enhanced independence and quality of life. Risk of bias was generally low to moderate, and findings were consistent across diverse healthcare settings. Conclusion: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation appears to be more effective than isolated therapy approaches in supporting stroke recovery across physical, cognitive, and communicative domains. While the evidence is promising, variability in study designs and sample sizes suggests a need for further standardized, large-scale trials to validate these findings and guide clinical implementation.
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 | 0.014 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".