Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33130810›Full record

ArticleNeurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)2020

Patient profiles contribute to differences in quality metrics of stroke centers.

Matthias Ungerer, Nima H Begli, Miriam Heyse, Jan Purrucker, Jens Regula, Anne Berberich, Ludovico Ciolli, Simon Nagel, Peter Ringleb, Christoph Gumbinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Matthias UngererDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nima H Begli
Miriam Heyse
Jan Purrucker
Jens Regula
Anne Berberich
Ludovico Ciolli
Simon Nagel
Peter Ringleb
Christoph Gumbinger

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine this association by comparing patient profiles in 2 closely affiliated hospitals and by examining their association with quality metrics.

methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study comparing a university level comprehensive stroke centers (CSC) with its teaching hospital and local stroke unit (LSU) using routinely collected quality assurance data over a 2 year period. Both hospitals were closely affiliated, shared important resources and medical staff rotated amongst both hospitals. We compared patient profiles as well as internationally recognized quality metrics and examined the association of profiles with quality metrics.

resultsA total of 2,462 patients were treated in the CSC and 726 in the LSU. The LSU had a longer door-to-image and door-to-needle times. Rate of systemic thrombolysis was lower in the LSU. Patient profiles differed significantly and were associated with door-to-image and door-to-needle times as well as intravenous thrombolysis rates, even when adjusted for stroke service level. The diagnostic procedures for stroke work-up were similar. Discharge management differed strongly.

conclusionAlthough LSUs and CSCs are the primary care providers in their respective regions, differences in patient profiles may contribute to differences in performance parameters. Adjusting for patient profiles may improve the comparability of the quality of stroke care provided by hospitals belonging to different stroke service levels.

Indexed as

Hospitals, TeachingHospitals, UniversityAgedBenchmarkingCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality Assurance, Health CareRetrospective StudiesStrokeThrombolytic TherapyTime-to-Treatment

Identifiers

PMID33130810
PMCPMC8015612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.