ArticleStroke2025
Association Between Real-World Actigraphy and Poststroke Motor Recovery.
Article in Stroke, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of robot-assisted gait training combined with electroacupuncture on lower limb motor function and brain network characteristics in stroke: an EEG study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Hand Dominance Influences Motor Recovery Trajectories Following Stroke: A Longitudinal Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advancing Neurorehabilitation and Recovery Through Human Movement Quantification via Wearable Sensing.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Article
- Stroke and motor outcomes are associated with regional and age-specific changes in periodic and aperiodic cortical activity.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Relationships between arm and leg real-life activity and clinical assessments in individuals with disabling spasticity after stroke.Frontiers in stroke · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStroke is a leading cause of long-term disability, but advances for rehabilitation have lagged those for acute treatment. Large biological studies (eg, omics) may offer mechanistic insights for recovery but require collecting detailed recovery phenotypes at scale, for example, in thousands of people with minimal burden for participants and researchers. This study investigates the concurrent validity between remotely collected wearable sensor data and in-clinic assessments of motor recovery poststroke.
methodsUtilizing a large, harmonized multisite dataset of adults at various stages of recovery poststroke, we analyzed cross-sectional (N=198; from 0 to >52 weeks) and longitudinal (N=98; from 0 to 26 weeks) changes in the use ratio, the Action Research Arm Test, and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment upper extremity subscale. The use ratio is the ratio of the time the paretic arm is active divided by the time the nonparetic arm is active.
resultsOur findings indicate strong concurrent validity of the use ratio, the Action Research Arm Test, and the Fugl-Meyer Assessment upper extremity subscale both cross-sectionally (differences between people) and longitudinally (changes within a person), for example,
conclusionsAlthough the use ratio strongly correlated with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment upper extremity subscale and Action Research Arm Test early after stroke, these correlations reduced with longer elapsed time poststroke. This decreasing correlation might be explained by the increasing influence that personal and environmental factors play as recovery progresses.
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.