Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.
Item: Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Clemson L, Scrivener K, Lannin N, Ada L, Day S, Lin I, Isbel S, Cusick A, Gardner B, Preston E, Heller G, Dean CM, FAST Study Group

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced2 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Data authenticity concerns1

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Other integrity concernAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and well-reported phase 3 randomized controlled trial with rigorous design, clear statistical methods, and transparent reporting. The main weakness is the lack of an explicit informed consent statement, which is a reporting gap rather than a substantive flaw. Minor copyedit issues and a few reporting details (e.g., outlier handling, assumptions verification) could be improved.

Both reviewers agreed on study type (interventional) and on most dimensions. Divergences were minor: outlier handling (R1 inadequate vs R2 adequate), assumptions verified (R1 inadequate vs R2 adequate), repository deposit (R1 inadequate vs R2 adequate), and limitations discussed (R1 adequate vs R2 inadequate). These were resolved conservatively where the paper lacked explicit detail. The statistics verification recomputed 4 tests consistently, but this is limited coverage; other statistics remain unverified.

7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 4 tests: 4 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 2 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites three prior randomized trials that found no effective non-drug interventions to reduce falls after stroke, and explains how the current intervention differs by integrating exercise into daily activities. The rationale is logically linked to the study objectives and hypotheses. Limitations of prior work are implicitly addressed by the design, though not explicitly detailed.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research and providing a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“In three randomised trials, the non-drug interventions investigated to reduce falls after stroke were not effective and involved either home modifications or exercise that was segregated from daily activities.”