Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35634889›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2022

A systematic review opens the black box of "usual care" in stroke rehabilitation control groups and finds a black hole.

Chiara Arienti, Riccardo Buraschi, Joel Pollet, Stefano G Lazzarini, Claudio Cordani, Stefano Negrini, Massimiliano Gobbo

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Rehabilitation and COVID-19: systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Mechanisms of Post-stroke Stiff-Knee Gait: A Narrative Review.American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chiara ArientiIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy.
Riccardo BuraschiIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy - rburaschi@dongnocchi.it.
Joel PolletIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy.
Stefano G LazzariniIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy.
Claudio CordaniIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Stefano NegriniIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Massimiliano GobboDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn experimental trials, new methods are tested against the "best" or "usual" care. To appraise control group (CG) interventions provided as "usual care," we focused on stroke as a leading cause of disability demanding rehabilitation as a complex intervention. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: For this methodological appraisal, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs without timespan limitation. The PICO included stroke survivors, rehabilitation, control group intervention, lower limb function. To assess the risk of bias, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB). We identified the terminology describing the CG Program (CGP), performed a knowledge synthesis and conducted a frequency analysis of provided interventions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 155 publications. 13.6% of the articles did not describe the CG, and 11.6% indicated only the professionals involved. In the remaining 116 studies, three studies provided an intervention according to specific guidelines, 106 different "usual care" CGPs were detected, with nine proposed twice and two between four and five times. The most adopted terminology to state "usual care" was "conventional physiotherapy."

conclusionsThis study shows that usual care in CG does not actually exist, as both specific terminology and consistency within CGP contents are missing. Reporting guidelines should give better assistance on this issue. These results should be verified in other fields.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationControl GroupsHumansSurvivors

Identifiers

PMID35634889
PMCPMC9980563

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.