Home-based rehabilitation nursing for post-stroke motor dysfunction: an evidence summary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to summarize the best available evidence on home-based rehabilitation nursing for post-stroke motor dysfunction to inform and standardize clinical practice. METHODS: This evidence summary followed the standardized evidence summary reporting framework of the Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing (registration number: ES20246111). The process included identifying the clinical problem, retrieving evidence, screening literature, assessing methodological quality, and synthesizing and grading the evidence. A systematic search was conducted across the following databases from their inception to November 2024: BMJ Best Practice, UpToDate, World Health Organization, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, National Guideline Clearinghouse, American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, Canadian Medical Association, United States Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, National Stroke Foundation, YiMaiTong Guideline Database, Chinese Stroke Association, Joanna Briggs Institute, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed. Literature types included clinical practice guidelines, expert consensus statements, evidence summaries, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses focusing on home-based rehabilitation nursing for post-stroke motor dysfunction. RESULTS: This study summarized seven aspects of best evidence, including rehabilitation management, rehabilitation assessment, motor function training, ADL training, assistive device support, psychological support, and risk management. CONCLUSION: This study synthesized the best available evidence on home-based rehabilitation nursing for patients with post-stroke motor dysfunction, identifying effective nursing strategies and key elements for implementation. The findings provide an evidence-based foundation to support the development of scientific, systematic, and standardized home rehabilitation nursing programs.
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 | 0.017 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".