{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015247776365946633, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.094594594594595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How to Evaluate Clinically Relevant Literature: Five Simple Rules for the Practicing Clinician in Stroke Neurorehabilitation

Neurorehabilitation relies on core principles of neuroplasticity to activate and engage latent neural connections, promote detour circuits, and reverse impairments. Clinical interventions incorporating these principles have been shown to promote recovery while demoting compensation. However, many clinicians struggle to find evidence for these principles in our growing but nascent body of literature. Regulatory bodies and organizational balance sheets further discourage evidence-based, methodical, time-intensive, and efficacious interventions because practical needs often outweigh and dominate clinical decision making. Modern neurorehabilitation practices that result from these pressures favor strategies that encourage compensation over those that promote recovery. With a focus on helping the busy clinician evaluate the rapidly growing literature, we put forth five simple rules that direct clinicians toward intervention studies that value more enduring but slower biological recovery processes over the more alluring practical and immediate “recovery” mantra. Filtering emerging literature through this critical lens has the potential to change practice and lead to more durable long-term outcomes. This perspective is meant to serve a new generation of mechanistically minded clinicians, students, and trainees poised to not only advance our field but to also erect policy changes that promote recovery-based care of stroke survivors.