ArticleBrain sciences2022
Application of Multi-Dimensional Intelligent Visual Quantitative Assessment System to Evaluate Hand Function Rehabilitation in Stroke Patients.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated EMG-Based Classification of Upper Extremity Motor Impairment Levels in Subacute Stroke.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Automatic rehabilitation assessment method of upper limb motor function based on posture and distribution force.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Influencing factors of corticomuscular coherence in stroke patients.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Hand dysfunction is one of the main symptoms of stroke patients, but there is still a lack of accurate hand function assessment systems. This study focused on the application of the multi-dimensional intelligent visual quantitative assessment system (MDIVQAS) in the rehabilitation assessment of hand function in stroke patients and evaluate hand function rehabilitation in stroke patients. Methods: Eighty-two patients with stroke and unilateral hand dysfunction were evaluated by MDIVQAS. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was used to assess the internal consistency of MDIVQAS; the F-test is used to assess the differences in MDIVQAS for multiple repeated measures. Spearman’s analysis was used to identify correlations of MDIVQAS with other assessment systems. t-tests were used to identify differences in outcomes assessed with MDIVQAS in patients before and after treatment. p < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: (1) Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of MDIVQAS in evaluating hand’s function > 0.9. (2) There was no significant difference between the other repeated measurements, except for thumb rotation in MDIVQAS. (3) MDIVQAS had a significant correlation with other assessment systems (r > 0.5, p < 0.01). (4) There were significant differences in the evaluation of hand function in patients before and after treatment using MDIVQAS. Conclusion: The MDIVQAS system has good reliability and validity in the evaluation of stroke hand function, and it can also better evaluate the treatment effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.