Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 408

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Coupar, Fiona, Pollock, Alex, Rowe, Phil, Weir, Christopher, Langhorne, Peter·2012·Clinical Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review and summarize the current available literature on prognostic variables relating to upper limb recovery following stroke. To identify which, if any variables predict upper limb recovery following stroke. Data sources: We completed searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Searches were completed in November 2010. Review methods: Studies were included if predictor variables were measured at baseline and linked to an outcome of upper limb recovery at a future time point. Exclusion criteria included predictor variables relating to response to treatment and outcome measurements of very specific upper limb impairments such as spasticity or pain. Two independent reviewers completed data extraction and assessed study quality. Results: Fifty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Predictor variables which have been considered within these studies include; age, sex, lesion site, initial motor impairment, motor-evoked potentials andsomatosensory-evoked potentials. Initial measures of upper limb impairment and function were found to be the most significant predictors of upper limb recovery; odds ratio 14.84 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 9.08–24.25) and 38.62 (95% CI 8.40–177.53), respectively. Conclusions: Interpretation of these results is complicated by methodological factors including variations in study populations, upper limb motor outcome scales, timing of baseline and outcome assessments and predictors selected. The most important predictive factors for upper limb recovery following stroke appears to the initial severity of motor impairment or function.

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 · 10.1177/0269215511420305

Cites

3 of 3 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 408

Metadata

Authors
Coupar, F., Pollock, A., Rowe, P., Weir, C., & Langhorne, P.
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Published
2011-10-24
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
291-313
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
OpenAlex
W2095845270
Cited by
408
References
3
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0269215511420305
The paper
Coupar, F., Pollock, A., Rowe, P., Weir, C., & Langhorne, P. (2012). Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215511420305

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.