The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How to do a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
High quality up-to-date systematic reviews are essential in order to help healthcare practitioners and researchers keep up-to-date with a large and rapidly growing body of evidence. Systematic reviews answer pre-defined research questions using explicit, reproducible methods to identify, critically appraise and combine results of primary research studies. Key stages in the production of systematic reviews include clarification of aims and methods in a protocol, finding relevant research, collecting data, assessing study quality, synthesizing evidence, and interpreting findings. Systematic reviews may address different types of questions, such as questions about effectiveness of interventions, diagnostic test accuracy, prognosis, prevalence or incidence of disease, accuracy of measurement instruments, or qualitative data. For all reviews, it is important to define criteria such as the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes, and to identify potential risks of bias. Reviews of the effect of rehabilitation interventions or reviews of data from observational studies, diagnostic test accuracy, or qualitative data may be more methodologically challenging than reviews of effectiveness of drugs for the prevention or treatment of stroke. Challenges in reviews of stroke rehabilitation can include poor definition of complex interventions, use of outcome measures that have not been validated, and poor generalizability of results. There may also be challenges with bias because the effects are dependent on the persons delivering the intervention, and because masking of participants and investigators may not be possible. There are a wide range of resources which can support the planning and completion of systematic reviews, and these should be considered when planning a systematic review relating to 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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769
Scoping studies: advancing the methodology
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O'Brien, K. K. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 · Cited by 15,268
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655 · Cited by 10,995
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548 · cited 1×
“The TIDieR checklist (58) may provide a useful guide to clarifying the intervention, and ensuring a structured definition.”
Background
Cited by
Health and migration in the context of a changing climate: a systematic literature assessment
Schwerdtle, P. N., McMichael, C., Mank, I., Sauerborn, R., Danquah, I., & Bowen, K. J. (2020) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ece · Cited by 94
“The PEO approach is well suited to population health questions involving observational studies (Pollock and Berge 2018) and research questions aiming to determine the association between exposures, risk factors, and outcomes (Munn et al 2018).”
BackgroundLazarus, S., Whittaker, J. M., McGuire, M. R., & Platt, L. (2023) · Journal of Economic Criminology · doi:10.1016/j.jeconc.2023.100013 · Cited by 97
Culturally adapted psychotherapies for depressed adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Anik, E., West, R. M., Cardno, A. G., & Mir, G. (2021) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.09.051 · Cited by 65
Innovative technology-based interventions in aphasia rehabilitation: a systematic review
Repetto, C., Paolillo, M. P., Tuena, C., Bellinzona, F., & Riva, G. (2021) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2020.1819957 · Cited by 63
Citation Contamination by Paper Mill Articles in Systematic Reviews of the Life Sciences
Tang, G., & Cai, H. (2025) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.15160 · Cited by 25
Methodische Ansätze zu Evidenzsynthesen in der Bildungstechnologie: Eine tertiäre Übersichtsarbeit
Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V., Händel, M., & Bond, M. (2023) · MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung · doi:10.21240/mpaed/54/2023.12.20.x · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Pollock, A., & Berge, E.
- Venue
- International Journal of Stroke
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-11-17
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 138-156
- ISSN
- 1747-4930 (ISSN-L)
- 1747-4949
- OpenAlex
- W2769461434
- Cited by
- 530
- References
- 39
- FWCI
- 1.95
- 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
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.
