NeuroDash 2026 Research Quality Master Criteria
The permanent, non-negotiable standard that governs every brief on NeuroDash. No brief may be published or remain live unless it meets every criterion in this document.
Purpose
NeuroDash exists to deliver only the highest-quality, most clinically actionable evidence to neurological physical therapists. This document defines the exact, uncompromising standards that every brief must meet. These criteria are permanent and will be used to evaluate, refresh, or remove any brief on the platform.
Core Philosophy
Every brief must synthesize only the strongest available evidence from top-tier sources. Vague, narrative, or low-precision claims are unacceptable. All findings must be quantifiable, measurable in clinical practice, and directly translatable into precise patient management. Quality is defined by rigor, recency, objectivity, and immediate usability — not by volume of content.
Mandatory Criteria
Every brief must satisfy all of the following without exception
Objective, Quantifiable Outcome Measures
Every brief must contain a minimum of three distinct, quantifiable outcome measures. Each measure must report the exact assessment tool used, the precise numerical improvement with units, statistical measures including confidence intervals, p-values, or effect sizes where reported, MCID/MDC values for clinical context, and a direct clinical interpretation of what the change means for patient management and prognosis.
Example: 6-Minute Walk Test improved by 47m (95% CI: 32–62m, p<0.001, MCID=34m) — clinically meaningful improvement in community ambulation capacity
Source Tier and Recency
All sources must come exclusively from Tier-1 publications dated 2023–2026. Acceptable sources are limited to: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Lancet Neurology, Stroke, Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, and official clinical practice guidelines issued by AHA/ASA, ANPT, American Academy of Neurology, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic, or European Stroke Organisation. A minimum of 5–7 citations is required per brief. Every citation must include full bibliographic details and a verification date.
Example: Zhang et al. (2024), Stroke, doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.2024.123456 — Verified April 2026
Evidence Grading
Every brief must display a clear Evidence Grade using the GRADE system (Strong, Moderate, or Weak). A one-sentence justification based on GRADE methodology must accompany the grade, addressing risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision.
Example: Evidence Grade: Strong — Based on 3 multi-center RCTs with low risk of bias, consistent effect direction, and narrow confidence intervals
Clinical Precision and Actionability
Every brief must specify exact dosing parameters including frequency, session duration, total treatment period, intensity, rest intervals, and detailed progression criteria. A dedicated section must list the most common clinical errors that reduce effectiveness or increase risk. Clear indicators for when to advance treatment or discharge the patient must be included.
Example: LSVT BIG: 4 days/week × 4 weeks, 1-hour sessions, high-amplitude movements. Progress when patient achieves 80% accuracy on 3 consecutive sessions. Common error: reducing intensity below threshold.
Patient Specificity and Safety
Every brief must address key contraindications, precautions, medication interactions, and considerations for special populations. When imaging findings or lesion characteristics alter clinical decision-making, these must be explicitly incorporated into the recommendations.
Example: Contraindicated in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (>180/110). Use caution with concurrent beta-blocker therapy — monitor HR response. Cortical vs. subcortical stroke location alters expected recovery trajectory.
Writing Standards
All content must be written in clear, professional clinical English suitable for use between patient sessions. Technical terminology must be defined on first use. The Key Findings section must remain within 450–550 words while maintaining full clinical depth.
Example: Key Findings: 487 words. All abbreviations defined (e.g., CIMT = Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy). Written at clinical professional reading level.
Strictly Prohibited Content
The following are never acceptable on NeuroDash
Any source published before 2023 unless it is a true landmark study with explicit justification
Vague or non-quantifiable language (e.g., "exercise regularly," "moderate intensity")
Narrative reviews, case reports, or small single-center studies as primary evidence
Any claim lacking specific, measurable outcome data
Over-generalization across heterogeneous patient populations without clear acknowledgment of limitations
Any content that does not meet the minimum passing score of 85/100 on the internal quality rubric
Verification and Transparency Requirements
Every brief undergoes rigorous independent verification
Independent Verification
Every brief must undergo independent verification against original systematic reviews and guidelines.
Verification Date
The date of last verification must appear on every brief, ensuring clinicians know the currency of the evidence.
Full Source Transparency
Full source lists with DOIs must remain permanently visible on every brief page.
Audit Trail
An internal audit log of all source updates must be maintained and available upon request from academic or clinical institutions.
Internal Quality Scoring Rubric
Each brief receives a score out of 100 points. Minimum acceptable score: 85/100
Any brief scoring below 85 out of 100 must be immediately refreshed or permanently removed from the platform.
Required Brief Structure
Every brief must follow this exact sequence
Title
Specialty designation and Evidence Grade badge with justification
Research date and last verification date
Key Findings section containing all required objective measures
Clinic Action Plan with numbered steps and exact parameters
What NOT to Do section
Optional deeper context section
Full source list with complete citations and DOIs
Research Quality Badge stating the brief meets the 2026 NeuroDash High-Standard Criteria
Our Verification Process
Every brief undergoes a multi-step verification process before it appears on NeuroDash. This ensures clinicians can trust the information they use in practice.
Research Curation
Sources are identified exclusively from Tier-1 journals and institutions. Only 2023–2026 systematic reviews, RCTs, and official clinical practice guidelines are accepted.
Quality Audit
Each brief is scored against the 100-point rubric. Briefs scoring below 85 are either upgraded to meet all 6 criteria or permanently removed from the platform.
Clinical Review
Every Clinic Action Plan is reviewed for practical applicability. Dosing parameters, safety notes, and progression criteria are cross-referenced with source data.
Final Enforcement
From this point forward, no brief may be published or remain live on NeuroDash unless it has been verified against and meets every criterion listed in this document.
This document constitutes the permanent, non-negotiable research quality standard for the entire NeuroDash platform. All 147 briefs currently on the platform have been verified against these criteria and meet the minimum quality score of 85/100.
Ready to explore the evidence?
Every brief you read on NeuroDash has passed all 6 mandatory criteria and scored 85/100 or above. Start browsing with confidence.