The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intensive upper limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke: outcomes from the Queen Square programme
Open accessAbstract
Objective: Persistent difficulty in using the upper limb remains a major contributor to physical disability post-stroke. There is a nihilistic view about what clinically relevant changes are possible after the early post-stroke phase. The Queen Square Upper Limb Neurorehabilitation programme delivers high-quality, high-dose, high-intensity upper limb neurorehabilitation during a 3-week (90 hours) programme. Here, we report clinical changes made by the chronic stroke patients treated on the programme, factors that might predict responsiveness to therapy and the relationship between changes in impairment and activity. Methods: Upper limb impairment and activity were assessed on admission, discharge, 6 weeks and 6 months after treatment, with modified upper limb Fugl-Meyer (FM-UL, max-54), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT, max-57) and Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI, max-91). Patient-reported outcome measures were recorded with the Arm Activity Measure (ArmA) parts A (0–32) and B (0–52), where lower scores are better. Results: 224 patients (median time post-stroke 18 months) completed the 6-month programme. Median scores on admission were as follows: FM-UL = 26 (IQR 16–37), ARAT=18 (IQR 7–33), CAHAI=40 (28-55), ArmA-A=8 (IQR 4.5–12) and ArmA-B=38 (IQR 24–46). The median scores 6 months after the programme were as follows: FM-UL=37 (IQR 24–48), ARAT=27 (IQR 12–45), CAHAI=52 (IQR 35–77), ArmA-A=3 (IQR 1–6.5) and ArmA-B=19 (IQR 8.5–32). We found no predictors of treatment response beyond admission scores. Conclusion: With intensive upper limb rehabilitation, chronic stroke patients can change by clinically important differences in measures of impairment and activity. Crucially, clinical gains continued during the 6-month follow-up period.
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
Cites
The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance
Fugl-Meyer, A., Jääskö, L., Leyman, I., Olsson, S., & Steglind, S. (1975) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.2340/1650197771331 · Cited by 5,564
Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review
Langhorne, P., Coupar, F., & Pollock, A. (2009) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(09)70150-4 · Cited by 2,319
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
Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery Following Cerebrovascular Accident
Duncan, P. W., Propst, M., & Nelson, S. G. (1983) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/63.10.1606 · Cited by 962
Platz, T., Pinkowski, C., van Wijck, F., Kim, I.-H., di Bella, P., & Johnson, G. (2005) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1191/0269215505cr832oa · Cited by 894
Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke
French, B., Thomas, L. H., Coupe, J., McMahon, N. E., Connell, L., Harrison, J., Sutton, C. J., Tishkovskaya, S., & Watkins, C. L. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006073.pub3 · Cited by 709
Page, S. J., Fulk, G. D., & Boyne, P. (2012) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20110009 · Cited by 698
The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study
G. BROEKS, LANKHORST, RUMPING, & PREVO, A. J. H. (1999) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/096382899297459 · Cited by 691
Is More Better? Using Metadata to Explore Dose–Response Relationships in Stroke Rehabilitation
Lohse, K. R., Lang, C. E., & Boyd, L. A. (2014) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.114.004695 · Cited by 637
Veerbeek, J. M., Langbroek-Amersfoort, A. C., van Wegen, E. E. H., Meskers, C. G. M., & Kwakkel, G. (2017) · Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair · doi:10.1177/1545968316666957 · Cited by 633
Cited by
Advances and challenges in stroke rehabilitation
Stinear, C. M., Lang, C. E., Zeiler, S., & Byblow, W. D. (2020) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(19)30415-6 · Cited by 792
Adans-Dester, C., Hankov, N., O’Brien, A., Vergara-Diaz, G., Black-Schaffer, R., Zafonte, R., Dy, J., Lee, S. I., & Bonato, P. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-00328-w · Cited by 130
Sensorimotor cortex beta oscillations reflect motor skill learning ability after stroke
(2020) · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaa161 · Cited by 67
Rehabilitation Therapy Doses Are Low After Stroke and Predicted by Clinical Factors
Young, B. M., Holman, E. A., Cramer, S. C., Shah, S., Griessenauer, C. J., Patel, N., Lin, D. J., Gee, J., Moon, J., Schwertfeger, J., et al. (2023) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.122.041098 · Cited by 67
Monnelly, K., Marshall, J., & Cruice, M. (2022) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.1964626 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Ward, N. S., Brander, F., & Kelly, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2019-02-15
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 498-506
- ISSN
- 0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-330X
- OpenAlex
- W2914392737
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 23.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Intensive upper limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke: outcomes from the Queen Square programme. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jnnp-2018-319954
- The paper
- Ward, N. S., Brander, F., & Kelly, K. (2019). Intensive upper limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke: outcomes from the Queen Square programme. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2018-319954
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.
