Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25582164›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2015

Who does it first? The uptake of medical innovations in the performance of thrombolysis on ischemic stroke patients in Germany: a study based on hospital quality data.

Nadine Scholten, Holger Pfaff, Helmar C Lehmann, Gereon R Fink, Ute Karbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Nadine ScholtenIMVR-Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Nadine.Scholten@uk-koeln.de.
Holger PfaffIMVR-Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Holger.Pfaff@uk-koeln.de.
Helmar C LehmannDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Helmar.Lehmann@uk-koeln.de.
Gereon R FinkDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. G.R.Fink@fz-juelich.de.
Ute KarbachIMVR-Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. Ute.Karbach@uk-koeln.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince 2000, systemic thrombolysis has been the only approved curative and causal treatment for acute ischemic stroke. In 2009, the guidelines of the German Society for Neurology were updated and the therapeutic window for performing thrombolysis was extended. The implementation of new therapies is influenced by many factors. We analyzed the factors at the organizational level that influence the implementation of thrombolysis in stroke patients.

methodsThe data published by the majority of German hospitals in their structured quality reports was assessed. We calculated a regression model in order to measure the influence of hospital/department-level characteristics (e.g., teaching status, ownership, location, and number of hospital beds) on the implementation of thrombolysis in 2006 (this is the earliest point in time that can be analyzed on this data basis). In order to measure the effect of the guideline update in 2009 on the thrombolysis rate (TR) change between 2008 and 2010, we performed a Wilcoxon signed-rank test and utilized a regression model.

resultsIn 2006, 61.5% of a total of 286 neurology departments performed systemic thrombolysis to treat ischemic strokes. The influencing factors for the use of systemic thrombolysis in 2006 were the existence of a stroke unit (+) and a hospital size of between 500 and 1,000 beds (-). A significant increase of the mean departmental TR (thrombolysis rate) from 6.7% to 9.2% between 2008 and 2010 was observed after the guideline update in 2009. For the departments performing thrombolysis in 2008 and 2010, our analysis could not show any additional influencing factors on a structural level that would explain the TR rise during the period 2008-2010.

conclusionsBecause ischemic stroke patients benefit from systemic thrombolysis, it is necessary to examine possible barriers at the organizational level that hinder the implementation. Our data shows that, organizational factors have an influence on the implementation of thrombolysis. However, the recent guideline update resulted in a TR rise that occurred at all hospitals, regardless of the measured structural conditions, as our analysis could not identify any structural factors that might have influenced the TR after the guideline update.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationBrain IschemiaGermanyGuideline AdherenceHospitalsHumansStrokeThrombolytic Therapy

Identifiers

PMID25582164
PMCPMC4300164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.