Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 825

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study.

Open access
Collin, C, Wade, D·1990·Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Abstract

Two short tests of motor function, the Motricity Index (MI) and the Trunk Control Test (TCT), were assessed at regular intervals after stroke and compared with a detailed physiotherapy test, the Rivermead Motor Assessment (RMA). The MI and TCT were valid and reliable tests which were usually quicker to perform than the RMA. The TCT was of predictive value when related to eventual walking ability. All three tests appeared to be of equal sensitivity in detecting change.

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 · 10.1136/jnnp.53.7.576

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.

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

Cited by

See all 825

Metadata

Authors
Collin, C., & Wade, D.
Venue
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1990-07-01
Volume
53
Issue
7
Pages
576-579
ISSN
0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077764376
Cited by
825
References
0
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jnnp.53.7.576
The paper
Collin, C., & Wade, D. (1990). Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.53.7.576

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.