Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 354

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting Activities after Stroke: What is Clinically Relevant?

Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B. J.·2013·International Journal of Stroke

Abstract

Knowledge about factors that determine the final outcome after stroke is important for early stroke management, rehabilitation goals, and discharge planning. This narrative review provides an overview of current knowledge about the prediction of activities after stroke. We reviewed the pattern of stroke recovery for functions and activities, the impact of spontaneous recovery on activities, and the measurement of improvement in general. We explored the activities profiles during the chronic phase and predictors for activities of daily living independence after stroke, and finally, we discussed where to from here? Mathematical regularities explain the nonlinear patterns of recovery, making the outcome of activities of daily living highly predictable. Initial severity of disability and extent of improvement observed within the first weeks poststroke are important indicators of the outcome at six-months. The sequence of progress in activities is almost fixed in time. Studies showed that most motor recovery is almost completed within 10 weeks poststroke. On average, stroke recovery plateaus three- to six-months after onset. Strong evidence was found that age and scores on scales assessing severity of neurological deficits in the early poststroke phase are strongly associated with the final basic activities of daily living outcome after three-months poststroke. The validated prediction models using simple algorithms, such as National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale or Barthel Index, need to be implemented in rehabilitation services and used for stratifying stroke patients in trials. Future studies should investigate the accuracy of dynamic models that includes time poststroke to optimize the application of prediction rules in individuals with stroke.

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 · 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00967.x

Cites

69 of 69 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 69 references

Cited by

See all 354

Metadata

Authors
Kwakkel, G., & Kollen, B. J.
Venue
International Journal of Stroke
Published
2012-12-24
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
25-32
ISSN
  • 1747-4930 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-4949
OpenAlex
W1598153360
Cited by
354
References
69
FWCI
16.28
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: Predicting Activities after Stroke: What is Clinically Relevant? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00967.x
The paper
Kwakkel, G., & Kollen, B. J. (2013). Predicting Activities after Stroke: What is Clinically Relevant? International Journal of Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00967.x

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.