ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2019
The efficacy of the electric patient hoist systems in mobilization.
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2019. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLong-term immobilization brings about physiological and biomechanical adverse effects on organs and systems. For enabling patients to stand on their feet and to be mobilized in the early period, electric patient hoist system (EPHS) accelerates the recovery of systemic functions and allows the patient with neurological diseases to become independent. This study aimed to investigate whether EPHS differs from conventional systems in the duration of hospitalization, mobility level and return to activities of daily living by analyzing patients mobilized with EPHS in the early period.
methodsWe analyzed 30 patients with neurological diseases, who were aged 50-75 years and immobile for more than one week. The patients were divided into two groups as EPHS patients and controls. Before and after the treatment, we recorded age, height, weight, hospitalization duration and time of mobilization. Mobility was assessed using the clinical and Rivermead mobility indexes while daily activities were evaluated with the Barthel index.
resultsOur results indicated that the hospitalization duration decreased significantly in the patients practicing with EPHS in comparison with the controls (p=0.014). When the groups were compared regarding the pre- and post-treatment outcomes of the clinical and Rivermead mobility indexes, the mobility levels of the EPHS group showed more considerable improvement (p<0.001). The Barthel index demonstrated that the EPHS patients showed significantly higher participation in daily life within a significantly shorter time (p=0.002).
conclusionApplying EPHS in the early period of hospitalization extends the time patients stand on their feet, enabling them to spend this time effectively. In conclusion, intervening immobile patients with EPHS in addition to their early rehabilitation program achieved earlier mobilization, shorter hospitalization and easier return to daily life activities.
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.