The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting Recovery Potential for Individual Stroke Patients Increases Rehabilitation Efficiency
Open accessAbstract
Background and Purpose—: Several clinical measures and biomarkers are associated with motor recovery after stroke, but none are used to guide rehabilitation for individual patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of upper limb predictions in stroke rehabilitation, by combining clinical measures and biomarkers using the Predict Recovery Potential (PREP) algorithm. Methods—: Predictions were provided for patients in the implementation group (n=110) and withheld from the comparison group (n=82). Predictions guided rehabilitation therapy focus for patients in the implementation group. The effects of predictive information on clinical practice (length of stay, therapist confidence, therapy content, and dose) were evaluated. Clinical outcomes (upper limb function, impairment and use, independence, and quality of life) were measured 3 and 6 months poststroke. The primary clinical practice outcome was inpatient length of stay. The primary clinical outcome was Action Research Arm Test score 3 months poststroke. Results—: Length of stay was 1 week shorter for the implementation group (11 days; 95% confidence interval, 9–13 days) than the comparison group (17 days; 95% confidence interval, 14–21 days; P =0.001), controlling for upper limb impairment, age, sex, and comorbidities. Therapists were more confident ( P =0.004) and modified therapy content according to predictions for the implementation group ( P <0.05). The algorithm correctly predicted the primary clinical outcome for 80% of patients in both groups. There were no adverse effects of algorithm implementation on patient outcomes at 3 or 6 months poststroke. Conclusions—: PREP algorithm predictions modify therapy content and increase rehabilitation efficiency after stroke without compromising clinical outcome. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN12611000755932.
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
Adams, H. P., Davis, P. H., Leira, E. C., Chang, K.-C., Bendixen, B. H., Clarke, W. R., Woolson, R. F., & Hansen, M. D. (1999) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.53.1.126 · Cited by 1,456
Sex differences in stroke: epidemiology, clinical presentation, medical care, and outcomes
Reeves, M. J., Bushnell, C. D., Howard, G., Gargano, J. W., Duncan, P. W., Lynch, G., Khatiwoda, A., & Lisabeth, L. (2008) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(08)70193-5 · Cited by 1,362
Cited by
PREP2: A biomarker‐based algorithm for predicting upper limb function after stroke
Stinear, C. M., Byblow, W. D., Ackerley, S. J., Smith, M., Borges, V. M., & Barber, P. A. (2017) · Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · doi:10.1002/acn3.488 · Cited by 359
Self-citationGittins, M., Lugo-Palacios, D., Vail, A., Bowen, A., Paley, L., Bray, B., & Tyson, S. (2021) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/0269215520966473 · Cited by 62
Palumbo, A., Aluru, V., Battaglia, J., Geller, D., Turry, A., Ross, M., Cristian, A., Balagula, C., Ogedegbe, G., Khatri, L., et al. (2022) · American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000001938 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Stinear, C. M., Byblow, W. D., Ackerley, S. J., Barber, P. A., & Smith, M.-C.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2017-04
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1011-1019
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2592255797
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 12.52
- 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: Predicting Recovery Potential for Individual Stroke Patients Increases Rehabilitation Efficiency. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/strokeaha.116.015790
- The paper
- Stinear, C. M., Byblow, W. D., Ackerley, S. J., Barber, P. A., & Smith, M.-C. (2017). Predicting Recovery Potential for Individual Stroke Patients Increases Rehabilitation Efficiency. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.116.015790
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.