The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the long-term motor and functional recovery of arm function after stroke. DESIGN: Cohort study. SUBJECTS: Fifty-four patients with a first stroke, who underwent inpatient rehabilitation, were measured early after stroke, after 16 weeks and after 4 years. MEASURES: Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment (FM, upper extremity), Action Research Arm Test (ARA), Barthel Index, Arm Function Questionnaire, shoulder pain and range of motion, sensory function, Ashworth Scale and a perceived problem score. RESULTS: Although most of the improvement occurred during the first 16 weeks after stroke, improvement in the FM score continued after 16 weeks in 10 patients. In 13 patients the recovery of arm function only started after 16 weeks. After 4 years a fair to good recovery of arm motor function (FM score > 20) was found in 31 patients. Twenty-seven patients had fair to good functional abilities of the hemiplegic arm (ARA > 25). Submaximal ARA scores for the unaffected arm were found in 11 patients. Barthel scores > 60 were found in 52 patients. Serious shoulder pain persisted in 11 patients. Intact sensory function was found in only 14 patients. It was associated with good motor recovery (FM score > 35 in 11 patients). Loss of arm function was perceived as a major problem by 36 patients. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate the recovery of arm function after stroke over a period of 4 years. It is encouraging to note that even after 16 weeks improvement still occurred in some patients. However, considerable long-term loss of arm function, associated disability and perceived problems were found. There is an obvious need to develop effective treatment methods for hemiplegic arm function.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Robot-Assisted Therapy for Long-Term Upper-Limb Impairment after Stroke
Lo, A. C., Guarino, P. D., Richards, L. G., Haselkorn, J. K., Wittenberg, G. F., Federman, D. G., Ringer, R. J., Wagner, T. H., Krebs, H. I., Volpe, B. T., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0911341 · Cited by 1,397
Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke
Pollock, A., Farmer, S. E., Brady, M. C., Langhorne, P., Mead, G. E., Mehrholz, J., & van Wijck, F. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010820.pub2 · Cited by 909
Timmermans, A. A., Seelen, H. A., Willmann, R. D., & Kingma, H. (2009) · Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-1 · Cited by 483
Mirror Therapy Promotes Recovery From Severe Hemiparesis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Dohle, C., Püllen, J., Nakaten, A., Küst, J., Rietz, C., & Karbe, H. (2009) · Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair · doi:10.1177/1545968308324786 · Cited by 435
Intensive upper limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke: outcomes from the Queen Square programme
Ward, N. S., Brander, F., & Kelly, K. (2019) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2018-319954 · Cited by 341
Metadata
- Authors
- G. BROEKS, LANKHORST, RUMPING, & PREVO, A. J. H.
- Venue
- Disability and Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 357-364
- ISSN
- 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5165
- OpenAlex
- W2158625531
- Cited by
- 691
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.24
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/096382899297459
- The paper
- G. BROEKS, LANKHORST, RUMPING, & PREVO, A. J. H. (1999). The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/096382899297459
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.