For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
20
views
233
references
 Top references
cited by
142
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      3,247
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Improving upper limb function is a core element of stroke rehabilitation needed to maximise patient outcomes and reduce disability. Evidence about effects of individual treatment techniques and modalities is synthesised within many reviews. For selection of effective rehabilitation treatment, the relative effectiveness of interventions must be known. However, a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews in this area is currently lacking.

          Related collections

          Most cited references233

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

          Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Gunn E. Vist … (2008)
          Article 0 comments Cited 3635 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

            T C Hoffmann, P P Glasziou, I Boutron … (2015)
            Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
            Article 0 comments Cited 2000 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials.

              Christopher Maher, Catherine Sherrington, Robert D. Herbert … (2003)
              Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is common practice in systematic reviews. However, the reliability of data obtained with most quality assessment scales has not been established. This report describes 2 studies designed to investigate the reliability of data obtained with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale developed to rate the quality of RCTs evaluating physical therapist interventions. In the first study, 11 raters independently rated 25 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database. In the second study, 2 raters rated 120 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database, and disagreements were resolved by a third rater; this generated a set of individual rater and consensus ratings. The process was repeated by independent raters to create a second set of individual and consensus ratings. Reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items was calculated using multirater kappas, and reliability of the total (summed) score was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC [1,1]). The kappa value for each of the 11 items ranged from.36 to.80 for individual assessors and from.50 to.79 for consensus ratings generated by groups of 2 or 3 raters. The ICC for the total score was.56 (95% confidence interval=.47-.65) for ratings by individuals, and the ICC for consensus ratings was.68 (95% confidence interval=.57-.76). The reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items varied from "fair" to "substantial," and the reliability of the total PEDro score was "fair" to "good."
              Article 0 comments Cited 686 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (publisher-id): 146518
                Title: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Publisher: Wiley
                ISSN (Electronic): 14651858
                Publication date (Electronic): November 12 2014
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Glasgow Caledonian University; Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit; Buchanan House Cowcaddens Road Glasgow UK G4 0BA
                [2 ]University of Glasgow; Academic Section of Geriatric Medicine; Level 2, New Lister Building Glasgow Royal Infirmary Glasgow UK G31 2ER
                [3 ]University of Edinburgh; Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences; Room S1642, Royal Infirmary Little France Crescent Edinburgh UK EH16 4SA
                [4 ]Private Europäische Medizinische Akademie der Klinik Bavaria in Kreischa GmbH; Wissenschaftliches Institut; An der Wolfsschlucht 1-2 Kreischa Germany 01731
                [5 ]Glasgow Caledonian University; Institute for Applied Health Research and the School of Health and Life Sciences; Glasgow UK
                Article
                DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010820.pub2
                PMC ID: 6469541
                PubMed ID: 25387001
                SO-VID: 569bb2ce-c1ee-438e-add3-871ed9ec3849
                Copyright © © 2014
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content3,247

                See all similar

                Cited by235

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors3,243

                See all reference authors