Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 464

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of a Therapeutic Intervention for the Hemiplegic Upper Limb in the Acute Phase After Stroke: A Single-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Multicenter Trial

Open access
Feys, Hilde M., De Weerdt, Willy J., Selz, Beat E., Cox Steck, Gail A., Spichiger, Ruth, Vereeck, Luc E., Putman, Koen D., Van Hoydonck, Gustaaf A.·1998·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose—Arm function recovery is notoriously poor in stroke patients. The effect of treatment modalities, particularly those directed at improving upper limb function, has been studied primarily in chronic stroke patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a specific therapeutic intervention on arm function in the acute phase after stroke. Methods—In a single-blind, randomized, controlled multicenter trial, 100consecutive patients were allocated to either an experimental group that received an additional treatment of sensorimotor stimulation or to a control group. The intervention was applied for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated for level of impairment (Brunnström-Fugl-Meyer test) and disability (Action Research Arm test, Barthel Index) before, midway, and after the intervention period and at follow-up 6 and 12 months after stroke. Results—Patients in the experimental group performed better on the Brunnström-Fugl-Meyer test than those in the control group throughout the study period, but differences were significant only at follow-up. Results on the Action Research Arm test and Barthel Index revealed no effect at the level of disability. The effect of the therapy was attributed to the repetitive stimulation of muscle activity. The treatment was most effective in patients with a severe motor deficit and hemianopia or hemi-inattention. No adverse effects due to the intervention were found. Conclusions—Adding a specific intervention during the acute phase after stroke improved motor recovery, which was apparent 1 year later. These results emphasize the potential beneficial effect of therapeutic interventions for the arm.

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 · 10.1161/01.str.29.4.785

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 464

Metadata

Authors
Feys, H. M., De Weerdt, W. J., Selz, B. E., Cox Steck, G. A., Spichiger, R., Vereeck, L. E., Putman, K. D., & Van Hoydonck, G. A.
Venue
Stroke
Published
1998-04
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
785-792
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2161719272
Cited by
464
References
2
FWCI
16.56
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: Effect of a Therapeutic Intervention for the Hemiplegic Upper Limb in the Acute Phase After Stroke: A Single-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Multicenter Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.29.4.785
The paper
Feys, H. M., De Weerdt, W. J., Selz, B. E., Cox Steck, G. A., Spichiger, R., Vereeck, L. E., Putman, K. D., & Van Hoydonck, G. A. (1998). Effect of a Therapeutic Intervention for the Hemiplegic Upper Limb in the Acute Phase After Stroke: A Single-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Multicenter Trial. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.29.4.785

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.