Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,889

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy on Upper Extremity Function 3 to 9 Months After Stroke: The EXCITE Randomized Clinical Trial

Wolf, Steven L., Winstein, Carolee J., Miller, J. Philip, Taub, Edward, Uswatte, Gitendra, Morris, David, Giuliani, Carol, Light, Kathye E., Nichols-Larsen, Deborah, EXCITE Investigators, for the·2006·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.296.17.2095
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Single-site studies suggest that a 2-week program of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) for patients more than 1 year after stroke who maintain some hand and wrist movement can improve upper extremity function that persists for at least 1 year. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a 2-week multisite program of CIMT vs usual and customary care on improvement in upper extremity function among patients who had a first stroke within the previous 3 to 9 months. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Extremity Constraint Induced Therapy Evaluation (EXCITE) trial, a prospective, single-blind, randomized, multisite clinical trial conducted at 7 US academic institutions between January 2001 and January 2003. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-two individuals with predominantly ischemic stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were assigned to receive either CIMT (n = 106; wearing a restraining mitt on the less-affected hand while engaging in repetitive task practice and behavioral shaping with the hemiplegic hand) or usual and customary care (n = 116; ranging from no treatment after concluding formal rehabilitation to pharmacologic or physiotherapeutic interventions); patients were stratified by sex, prestroke dominant side, side of stroke, and level of paretic arm function. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), a measure of laboratory time and strength-based ability and quality of movement (functional ability), and the Motor Activity Log (MAL), a measure of how well and how often 30 common daily activities are performed. RESULTS: From baseline to 12 months, the CIMT group showed greater improvements than the control group in both the WMFT Performance Time (decrease in mean time from 19.3 seconds to 9.3 seconds [52% reduction] vs from 24.0 seconds to 17.7 seconds [26% reduction]; between-group difference, 34% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 12%-51%]; P<.001) and in the MAL Amount of Use (on a 0-5 scale, increase from 1.21 to 2.13 vs from 1.15 to 1.65; between-group difference, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.05-0.80]; P<.001) and MAL Quality of Movement (on a 0-5 scale, increase from 1.26 to 2.23 vs 1.18 to 1.66; between-group difference, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.13-0.84]; P<.001). The CIMT group achieved a decrease of 19.5 in self-perceived hand function difficulty (Stroke Impact Scale hand domain) vs a decrease of 10.1 for the control group (between-group difference, 9.42 [95% CI, 0.27-18.57]; P=.05). CONCLUSION: Among patients who had a stroke within the previous 3 to 9 months, CIMT produced statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in arm motor function that persisted for at least 1 year. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00057018.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.296.17.2095

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wolf, S. L., Winstein, C. J., Miller, J. P., Taub, E., Uswatte, G., Morris, D., Giuliani, C., Light, K. E., Nichols-Larsen, D., & EXCITE Investigators, F. T.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2006-11-01
Volume
296
Issue
17
Pages
2095
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.296.17.2095
OpenAlex
W1981990510
Cited by
1,889
References
1
FWCI
100.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.