The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is Accurate Prediction of Gait in Nonambulatory Stroke Patients Possible Within 72 Hours Poststroke?: The EPOS Study
Abstract
Background . Early prognosis, adequate goal setting, and referral are important for stroke management. Objective . To investigate if independent gait 6 months poststroke can be accurately predicted within the first 72 hours poststroke, based on simple clinical bedside tests. Reassessment on days 5 and 9 was used to check whether accuracy changed over time. Methods . In 154 first-ever ischemic stroke patients unable to walk independently, 19 demographic and clinical variables were assessed within 72 hours and again on days 5 and 9 poststroke. Multivariable logistic modeling was applied to identify early prognostic factors for regaining independent gait, defined as ≥4 points on the Functional Ambulation Categories. Results . Multivariable modeling showed that patients with an independent sitting balance (Trunk Control Test–sitting; 30 seconds) and strength of the hemiparetic leg (Motricity Index leg; eg, visible contraction for all 3 items, or movement against resistance but weaker for 1 item) on day 2 poststroke had a 98% probability of achieving independent gait at 6 months. Absence of these features in the first 72 hours was associated with a probability of 27%, declining to 10% by day 9. Conclusions . Accurate prediction of independent gait performance can be made soon after stroke, using 2 simple bedside tests: “sitting balance” and “strength of the hemiparetic leg.” This knowledge is useful for making early clinical decisions regarding treatment goals and discharge planning at hospital stroke units.
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
Clinical Gait Assessment in the Neurologically Impaired
Holden, M. K., Gill, K. M., Magliozzi, M. R., Nathan, J., & Piehl-Baker, L. (1984) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/64.1.35 · Cited by 1,499
Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: Facts and theories
Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B., & Lindeman, E. (2004) · Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience · doi:10.3233/rnn-2004-00282 · Cited by 727
Self-citationde Haart, M., Geurts, A. C., Huidekoper, S. C., Fasotti, L., & van Limbeek, J. (2004) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2003.05.012 · Cited by 447
Recovery of Gait After Stroke: What Changes?
Buurke, J. H., Nene, A. V., Kwakkel, G., Erren-Wolters, V., IJzerman, M. J., & Hermens, H. J. (2008) · Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair · doi:10.1177/1545968308317972 · Cited by 137
Self-citation
Cited by
Lloyd, M., Skelton, D. A., Mead, G. E., Williams, B., & van Wijck, F. (2018) · Brain and Behavior · doi:10.1002/brb3.1000 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Veerbeek, J. M., Van Wegen, E. E. H., Harmeling–Van der Wel, B. C., Kwakkel, G., & for the EPOS Investigators
- Venue
- Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-12-26
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 268-274
- ISSN
- 0888-4390 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-9683
- 1552-6844
- OpenAlex
- W2105132346
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.36
- 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: Is Accurate Prediction of Gait in Nonambulatory Stroke Patients Possible Within 72 Hours Poststroke?: The EPOS Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1545968310384271
- The paper
- Veerbeek, J. M., Van Wegen, E. E. H., Harmeling–Van der Wel, B. C., Kwakkel, G., & for the EPOS Investigators. (2011). Is Accurate Prediction of Gait in Nonambulatory Stroke Patients Possible Within 72 Hours Poststroke?: The EPOS Study. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968310384271
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.