ReviewFrontiers in neurology2025
An evidence map of clinical practice guideline recommendations and quality of non-pharmaceutical interventions for post-stroke emotional disorders.
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Application of a WeChat-Based Multidisciplinary Team Care Program for the Management of Patients After Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Cohort Study.Nursing & health sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have an indispensable role in guiding the selection of various non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for post-stroke emotional disorders (PSED). However, little is known about their quality and recommendations. This study aims to critically appraise the quality of existing NPIs for PSED CPGs and extract relevant recommendations, present the research distribution of various NPIs in an evidence map, and assist clinicians in making decisions. Methods: A systematic search was undertaken in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, and international guideline developing institutions from origin to November 20, 2024, to identify the CPGs on NPIs for PSED. The CPGs finally selected were blindly evaluated by two reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument and the reporting quality was evaluated using the RIGHT statement. The overall agreement among reviewers was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Nine guidelines were included and evaluated. Two CPGs were grade A (recommended) and seven CPGs were grade B (recommended with modification). The reporting rate of RIGHT ranged from 40.00 to 80.00%. Nine NPIs were extracted, and there were similarities and differences between the recommendations. Conclusion: This study provides specific direction for improving the quality of CPGs for NPIs for PSED, and provides useful information for clinicians and stakeholders, and provides a basis for clinical decision-making.
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.