Observational studyNeurology2016
Improved in-hospital outcomes and care for patients in stroke research: An observational study.
Observational study in Neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of very early rehabilitation for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of a Web-Based Health Education Program to Promote Oral Hygiene Care Among Stroke Survivors: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Trial
- Comparing inpatient stroke rehabilitation care and outcomes for people with and without aphasia in Australia.Clinical rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Measuring Representativeness in Clinical Trials.Circulation · 2025Review
- From 'strong recommendation' to practice: A pre-test post-test study examining adherence to stroke guidelines for fever, hyperglycaemia, and swallowing (FeSS) management post-stroke.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024Article
- The association of hospital research publications and clinical quality.Health services research · 2022Article
- Review
- Observational studies and the chicken and egg issue in stroke.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2017Article
- Stroke: Are care and outcomes better for participants of stroke trials?Nature reviews. Neurology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe stroke research activity in Australian acute public hospitals and determine if participation in research provides better quality of care and outcomes for patients with stroke.
methodsThis was an observational study using data from hospitals that participated in the National Stroke Foundation (Australia) acute services audit program in 2009, 2011, and 2013. This included self-reported organizational features and a retrospective clinical audit of up to 40 medical records of patients with stroke from each hospital. Multilevel random effects logistic regression with level defined as hospital and adjustments for hospital, demographic, clinical, and stroke severity factors were undertaken.
resultsA total of 240 hospitals submitted organizational data. Hospitals with a stroke unit (70% vs 7%, p < 0.001) and >200 stroke admissions per year (80% vs 17%, p < 0.001) reported greater involvement in research studies. Of 9,537 patients audited at 129 hospitals, 469 (5%) consented to participate in research. Patients who participated in research compared to nonparticipants were likely to be younger (median age 73 years; 25th percentile [Q1]: 63, 75th percentile [Q3]: 80, vs median age 76 years Q1: 64, Q3: 83; p < 0.001) and receive important clinical practices such as a swallow screen/assessment prior to oral intake (62% vs 56%; p < 0.01). An independent association with reduced in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.12, 0.76) was evident if participating in research regardless of access to stroke unit care.
conclusionsPatients who participate in stroke research receive better in-hospital care and are more likely to survive compared to nonresearch participants. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that patients with stroke who participate in research receive better quality of care and have reduced in-hospital mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.