Cited by 533Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementDysphagia Assessment and Management

Impact of Time on Improvement of Outcome After Stroke

Open access
Kwakkel, Gert, Kollen, Boudewijn, Twisk, Jos·2006·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— Longitudinal conducted studies show that neurologic and functional recovery show faster recovery in the first weeks poststroke. The aim of the present study was to study the effects of progress of time on observed improvements in motor strength, synergisms, and activities during the first 16 weeks poststroke. Methods— Based on data from a previous study, 101 patients with first-ever ischemic middle cerebral artery strokes were prospectively investigated during the first 16 weeks after stroke. Progress of time was categorized into 8 biweekly time intervals and was used as the independent covariate in a first-order longitudinal regression model. The biweekly time change (progress of time) was related to improvement in upper and lower limb motor recovery assessed with Fugl-Meyer score and Motricity Index, reduction in visuospatial inattention based on the letter cancellation task, and improvement in walking ability, dexterity, and activities of daily living measured with the Functional Ambulation Categories, Action Research Arm test, and Barthel Index. Results— Time explained a significant change of 8.4 (42%) measurement units on the Barthel Index for the first 10 weeks poststroke, 1.1 (22%) measurement units on Functional Ambulation Categories, and 19% on the Action Research Arm test for the first 6 and 8 weeks poststroke. Approximately 25% (for Fugl-Meyer-arm) to 26% (for Motricity Index-arm) of the significant change in measurements units was explained by time alone for the upper limb compared with 33% for Fugl-Meyer-leg and 39% for Motricity Index-leg of the lower limb. Time accounted for a reduction of 16% in the letter cancellation task. Observed associations did not change after controlling for covariates such as age, gender, hemisphere of stroke, type of stroke, or intervention. Conclusion— Progress of time is an independent covariate that reflects spontaneous recovery of body functions and activities explaining &16% to 42% of the observed improvements in the first 6 to 10 weeks after stroke onset.

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 · 10.1161/01.str.0000238594.91938.1e

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adaptation strategies already start as soon as patients learn to accomplish functional tasks within the first weeks poststroke.

    “These adaptation strategies already start as soon as patients learn to accomplish functional tasks within the first weeks poststroke.58”

    From The Effectiveness of the Bobath Concept in Stroke Rehabilitation: What is the Evidence? (2009) · cites this paper as [58]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) links learning adaptation strategies to acquiring functional tasks such as gait and daily activities. It places that explanation in the context of functional progress after three months, however, and does not establish that the strategies start within the first weeks poststroke. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Twisk JWR. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis for Epidemiology. Cam- bridge University Press; 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B., & Twisk, J.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Venue
Stroke
Published
2006-09
Volume
37
Issue
9
Pages
2348-2353
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2159053241
Cited by
533
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 28
FWCI
16.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ZonMw
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
Keywords
stroke recovery, stroke onset time, spontaneous recovery, motor recovery, activities of daily living, walking ability, ischemic stroke, middle cerebral artery stroke, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Motricity Index, Barthel Index, Functional Ambulation Category, Action Research Arm Test
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Arm, Humans, Leg, Middle Aged, Movement, Time Factors, Walking, Recovery of Function, Stroke

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