The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Treatment Interventions for the Paretic Upper Limb of Stroke Survivors: A Critical Review
Open accessAbstract
Despite a threefold increase in treatment interventions studies during the past 10 years, “best practice” for the rehabilitation of the paretic upper limb is still unclear. This review aims to lessen uncertainty in the management of the poststroke upper limb. Two separate searches of the scientific literature from 1966-2001 yielded 333 articles. Three referees, using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, selected 68 relevant references. Cohort studies, randomized control trials, and systematic reviews were critically appraised. Mean randomized control trial quality (n = 33) was 17.1/27 (SD = 5.2, 95% CI = 15.2–19.0, range = 6–26). Mean quality of cohort studies (n = 29) was 11.8/27 (SD = 3.8, 95% CI = 10.4–13.2, range = 4–19). Quantitative syntheses were done using theZ -statistic. This systematic review indicated that sensorimotor training; motor learning training that includes the use of imagery, electrical stimulation alone, or combined with biofeedback; and engaging the client in repetitive, novel tasks can be effective in reducing motor impairment after stroke. Furthermore, careful handling, electrical stimulation, movement with elevation, strapping, and the avoidance of overhead pulleys could effectively reduce or prevent pain in the paretic upper limb. Rehabilitation specialists can use this research synthesis to guide their selection of effective treatment techniques for persons with impairments after stroke.
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
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · Cited by 8,252
Cited by
Wolf, S. L., Winstein, C. J., Miller, J. P., Taub, E., Uswatte, G., Morris, D., Giuliani, C., Light, K. E., Nichols-Larsen, D., & EXCITE Investigators, F. T. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.17.2095 · Cited by 1,889
Self-citationEffects of Augmented Exercise Therapy Time After Stroke: A Meta-Analysis
Kwakkel, G., van Peppen, R., Wagenaar, R. C., Wood Dauphinee, S., Richards, C., Ashburn, A., Miller, K., Lincoln, N., Partridge, C., Wellwood, I., et al. (2004) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000143153.76460.7d · Cited by 1,081
The impact of physical therapy on functional outcomes after stroke: what's the evidence?
Van Peppen, R. P., Kwakkel, G., Wood-Dauphinee, S., Hendriks, H. J., Van der Wees, P. J., & Dekker, J. (2004) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1191/0269215504cr843oa · Cited by 942
Dobkin, B. H. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcp043511 · Cited by 910
Saposnik, G., Teasell, R., Mamdani, M., Hall, J., McIlroy, W., Cheung, D., Thorpe, K. E., Cohen, L. G., & Bayley, M. (2010) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.110.584979 · Cited by 721
Metadata
- Authors
- Barreca, S., Wolf, S. L., Fasoli, S., & Bohannon, R.
- Venue
- Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 220-226
- ISSN
- 0888-4390 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-9683
- 1552-6844
- OpenAlex
- W2152617661
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.16
- 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: Treatment Interventions for the Paretic Upper Limb of Stroke Survivors: A Critical Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0888439003259415
- The paper
- Barreca, S., Wolf, S. L., Fasoli, S., & Bohannon, R. (2003). Treatment Interventions for the Paretic Upper Limb of Stroke Survivors: A Critical Review. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888439003259415
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.