ReviewDer Nervenarzt2016
[Efficacy of early neurological and neurosurgical rehabilitation : Evidence-based treatment, outcome and prognostic factors].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of early rehabilitation nursing intervention on nerve function and daily living in patients with stroke hemiplegia.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly neurological and neurosurgical rehabilitation (ENNR) as a complex post-acute form of treatment for patients with severe neurological diseases and continued need for intensive care is well established in Germany.
objectiveTo assess the efficacy of ENNR from the perspective of evidence-based medicine as well as to present data on the outcome of ENNR patients including the analysis of prognostic factors. MATERIAL AND
methodsA search was carried out in PubMed databases to identify early rehabilitation treatment forms evaluated by randomized controlled trials and with respect to large multicenter surveys of outcome and prognostic factors.
resultsFor ENNR as a complex treatment concept, effectiveness not has been shown with regard to evidence-based medicine but it includes individually effective treatment forms. In two large multicenter evaluations the average duration of treatment was between 51 and 57 days and mortality was between 6 % and 10 %, increasing with the proportion of mechanically ventilated patients. Lower need for nursing support on admission indicated better outcome, whereas mechanical ventilation was more likely to be associated with poor outcome. Long-term outcome was negatively influenced by mechanical ventilation as well as severe neurogenic dysphagia with and without the need for a tracheal cannula and/or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and also by severely impaired communication at the end of ENNR. DISCUSSION: These prognostic factors indicate the primary aims of ENNR, which are to reduce the need for nursing support and to establish the capability for rehabilitation. If these aims are achieved, favorable functional and long-term outcome can be expected for ENNR patients. The presented studies verify the sustained efficacy of ENNR as an essential part of the overall treatment concept for severely neurologically impaired patients.
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.