The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can Neurological Biomarkers of Brain Impairment Be Used to Predict Poststroke Motor Recovery? A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
Background . There is growing interest to establish recovery biomarkers, especially neurological biomarkers, in order to develop new therapies and prediction models for the promotion of stroke rehabilitation and recovery. However, there is no consensus among the neurorehabilitation community about which biomarker(s) have the highest predictive value for motor recovery. Objective . To review the evidence and determine which neurological biomarker(s) meet the high evidence quality criteria for use in predicting motor recovery. Methods . We searched databases for prognostic neuroimaging/neurophysiological studies. Methodological quality of each study was assessed using a previously employed comprehensive 15-item rating system. Furthermore, we used the GRADE approach and ranked the overall evidence quality for each category of neurologic biomarker. Results . Seventy-one articles met our inclusion criteria; 5 categories of neurologic biomarkers were identified: diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), conventional structural MRI (sMRI), and a combination of these biomarkers. Most studies were conducted with individuals after ischemic stroke in the acute and/or subacute stage (~70%). Less than one-third of the studies (21/71) were assessed with satisfactory methodological quality (80% or more of total quality score). Conventional structural MRI and the combination biomarker categories ranked “high” in overall evidence quality. Conclusions . There were 3 prevalent methodological limitations: ( a ) lack of cross-validation, ( b ) lack of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for motor outcomes, and ( c ) small sample size. More high-quality studies are needed to establish which neurological biomarkers are the best predictors of motor recovery after stroke. Finally, the quarter-century old methodological quality tool used here should be updated by inclusion of more contemporary methods and statistical approaches.
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
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Cohen (2013) · doi:10.4324/9780203774441 · Cited by 3,228
Training induces changes in white-matter architecture
Scholz, J., Klein, M. C., Behrens, T. E. J., & Johansen-Berg, H. (2009) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2412 · Cited by 1,508
Holtmannspötter, M., Peters, N., Opherk, C., Martin, D., Herzog, J., Brückmann, H., Sämann, P., Gschwendtner, A., & Dichgans, M. (2005) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000189696.70989.a4 · Cited by 140
Cited by
BCI for stroke rehabilitation: motor and beyond
Mane, R., Chouhan, T., & Guan, C. (2020) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aba162 · Cited by 466
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
Belkacem, A. N., Jamil, N., Khalid, S., & Alnajjar, F. (2023) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2023.1085173 · Cited by 80
Snow, N. J., Wadden, K. P., Chaves, A. R., & Ploughman, M. (2019) · Neural Plasticity · doi:10.1155/2019/6430596 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, B., & Winstein, C.
- Venue
- Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-08-19
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-24
- ISSN
- 0888-4390 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-9683
- 1552-6844
- OpenAlex
- W2507891125
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.82
- 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: Can Neurological Biomarkers of Brain Impairment Be Used to Predict Poststroke Motor Recovery? A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1545968316662708
- The paper
- Kim, B., & Winstein, C. (2017). Can Neurological Biomarkers of Brain Impairment Be Used to Predict Poststroke Motor Recovery? A Systematic Review. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968316662708
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.