Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26958355›Full record

ArticleBJPsych bulletin2016

In-patient rehabilitation: clinical outcomes and cost implications.

Mel Bunyan, Yogesh Ganeshalingam, Ehab Morgan, Donvé Thompson-Boy, Rebekah Wigton, Frank Holloway, Derek K Tracy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych bulletin, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Proprietary Model of Qualification for In-Hospital Rehabilitation after COVID-19.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Mel BunyanOxleas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Yogesh GaneshalingamOxleas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ehab MorganOxleas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Donvé Thompson-BoyOxleas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rebekah WigtonKing's College London.
Frank HollowaySouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust.
Derek K TracyOxleas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; King's College London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims and method A retrospective evaluation was undertaken of the clinical and economic effectiveness of three in-patient rehabilitation units across one London National Health Service trust. Information on admission days and costs 2 years before and 2 years after the rehabilitation placement, length of rehabilitation placement and the discharge pathway was collected on 22 service users. Results There were statistically significant reductions in hospital admission days in the 2 years following rehabilitation compared with the 2 years before, further reflected in significantly lower bed costs. Longer length of rehabilitation placement was correlated with fewer admission days after the placement. A substantial proportion of the sample went into more independent living, some with no further admissions at follow-up. Clinical implications The findings suggest that in-patient rehabilitation is both clinically and cost effective: if benefits are sustained they will offset the cost of the rehabilitation placement.

Identifiers

PMID26958355
PMCPMC4768843

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.