Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19156378›Full record

ReviewHerz2008

[Rehabilitation 2008: when to use outpatient and inpatient rehabilitation?].

Gregor Sauer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Herz, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Wnt-frizzled signaling to G-protein-coupled effectors.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2004
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gregor SauerKlinik für kardiologische Rehabilitation und Prävention, Rhein-Klinik, Duisburg. g.sauer@katholisches-klinikum.de

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to illnesses of the cardiovascular system, costs of approximately 35 billion Euros arise in Germany per annum. This corresponds to around 15% of all costs arising in public-health service. Because of a positive influence of high-risk factors, high-risk illnesses, training condition, and lifestyle it is possible to improve the prognosis of the concerned patient within the scope of a training-based cardiac rehabilitation program. Altogether, the final costs of each case will be lowered by a cardiac rehabilitation. A proven advantage of an inpatient rehabilitation program over an outpatient rehabilitation program is not given. As the costs of outpatient measures are less than the costs of inpatient rehabilitation, outpatient measures usually should be preferred. Inpatient rehabilitation should only be carried out with patients who cannot take part in outpatient cardiac rehabilitation programs on account of attendant circumstances (e.g., age, comorbidities, immobility). As there is no adequate overall medical care with outpatient rehabilitation centers in Germany, around 90% of all cardiac rehabilitations usually takes place under inpatient conditions far away from home. In almost every case, however, the realization of close-to-home rehabilitation is to the best advantage. Regardless whether this is realized on an inpatient or outpatient basis, close-to-home rehabilitation also allows the social environment of the patient to be included into the care. Due to being close to home, also long term-based and everyday-attendant rehabilitation types would be possible in future.

Indexed as

Cardiac RehabilitationDecision Support Systems, ClinicalAmbulatory CareCardiovascular DiseasesGermanyHospitalizationHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.