Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19821135›Full record

Trial reportClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2009

Intervention study shows outpatient cardiac rehabilitation to be economically at least as attractive as inpatient rehabilitation.

Bernd Schweikert, Harry Hahmann, Jürgen M Steinacker, Armin Imhof, Rainer Muche, Wolfgang Koenig, Yufei Liu, Reiner Leidl

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Medical day hospital care for older people versus alternative forms of care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Cost-effectiveness of early rhythm control vs. usual care in atrial fibrillation care: an analysis based on data from the EAST-AFNET 4 trial.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Bernd SchweikertInstitute of Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, P.O.Box 1129, 85758, Neuherberg, Germany. bernd.schweikert@helmholtz-muenchen.de
Harry Hahmann
Jürgen M Steinacker
Armin Imhof
Rainer Muche
Wolfgang Koenig
Yufei Liu
Reiner Leidl
Universität Ulm · DEHelmholtz Zentrum München · DEUniversity and Rehabilitation Clinics Ulm · DEKlinik Bad Oexen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the late 1990 s, cost pressure has led to a growing interest in outpatient rehabilitation in Germany where predominantly inpatient rehabilitation has been provided. Taking into account the feasibility of a randomized design, the aim of this study was to compare outpatient and inpatient cardiac rehabilitation from a societal perspective.

methodA comprehensive cohort design was applied. Costs during rehabilitation were measured using individual documentation of the rehabilitation centers. Economic end points were quality of life (EQ-5D), and total direct and indirect costs. A propensity score approach, integrated into a simultaneous regression framework for cost and effects, was used to control for selection bias. Bootstrap analysis was applied for assessing uncertainty in cost-effectiveness.

resultsA total of 163 patients were included in the study (112 inpatients, 51 outpatients). As randomization was chosen by only 2.5% of participants, the study had to be analyzed as an observational study. Direct costs during inpatient rehabilitation were significantly higher by 600 euro (+/-318; p < 0.001) compared to outpatient rehabilitation (2,016 euro +/- 354 euro vs. 1,416 euro +/- 315), while there was no significant difference in health-related quality of life. Over the 12-month follow-up period, adjusted costs difference in total cost was estimated at -2,895 euro (p = 0.102) and adjusted difference in effects at 0.018 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (n.s.) in favor of outpatient treatment.

conclusionThe ratio of mean cost over mean effect difference (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) indicates dominance of outpatient rehabilitation, but at a considerable statistical uncertainty. However, outpatient rehabilitation cannot be rejected from an economic perspective.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAmbulatory CareCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeRehabilitation CentersSelection Bias

Identifiers

PMID19821135
OpenAlexW2034429716

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.