Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 220

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized, Controlled Trial to Evaluate Increased Intensity of Physiotherapy Treatment of Arm Function After Stroke

Open access
Lincoln, Nadina B., Parry, Ruth H., Vass, Catherine D.·1999·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose —Many patients have impaired arm function after stroke, for which they receive physiotherapy. The aim of the study was to determine whether increasing the amount of physiotherapy early after stroke improved the recovery of arm function and to compare the effects of this therapy when administered by a qualified therapist or a trained, supervised assistant. The physiotherapy followed a typical British approach, which is Bobath derived. Ten hours of additional therapy were given over a 5-week period. Methods —The study design was a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Stroke patients were recruited from those admitted to the hospital in the 5 weeks after stroke. They were randomly allocated to routine physiotherapy, additional treatment by a qualified physiotherapist, or additional treatment by a physiotherapy assistant. Outcome was assessed after 5 weeks of treatment and at 3 and 6 months after stroke on measures of arm function and of independence in activities of daily living. Results —There were 282 patients recruited to the study. The median initial Barthel score was 6.5, and the median age of the patients was 73 years. The median initial Rivermead Motor Assessment Arm score was 1. There were no significant differences between the groups at randomization or on any of the outcome measures. Only half of the patients allocated to the 2 additional-therapy groups completed the program. Conclusions —This increase in the amount of physiotherapy for arm impairment with a typical British approach given early after stroke did not significantly improve the recovery of arm function in the patients studied. A number of other studies of interventions aimed at rehabilitation of arm function have reported positive results. Such findings may have been due to the content of these interventions, to the greater intensity of the interventions, or to the selection of patients to whom the treatments were applied.

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.30.3.573

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 220

Metadata

Authors
Lincoln, N. B., Parry, R. H., & Vass, C. D.
Venue
Stroke
Published
1999-03
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
573-579
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2127470645
Cited by
220
References
1
FWCI
9.47
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: Randomized, Controlled Trial to Evaluate Increased Intensity of Physiotherapy Treatment of Arm Function After Stroke. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.30.3.573
The paper
Lincoln, N. B., Parry, R. H., & Vass, C. D. (1999). Randomized, Controlled Trial to Evaluate Increased Intensity of Physiotherapy Treatment of Arm Function After Stroke. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.30.3.573

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.