Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33795291›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2021

Regional differences in the care and outcomes of acute stroke patients in Australia: an observational study using evidence from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR).

Mitchell Dwyer, Karen Francis, Gregory M Peterson, Karen Ford, Seana Gall, Hoang Phan, Helen Castley, Lillian Wong, Richard White, Fiona Ryan and 5 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Regional access to a centralized extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) service in Victoria, Australia.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

15 authors.

Mitchell DwyerTasmanian School of Medicine, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9956-2569
Karen FrancisSchool of Nursing, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.
Gregory M PetersonSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6764-3882
Karen FordCentre of Education and Research Nursing and Midwifery, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Seana GallMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Hoang PhanMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0506-2924
Helen CastleyNeurology Department, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Lillian WongPrincess Alexandra Hospital, QLD Health, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
Richard WhiteTownsville Hospital, QLD Health, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Fiona RyanOrange and Bathurst Health Services, NSW Health, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lauren ArthursonInpatient Rehabilitation, Echuca Regional Health, Echuca, Victoria, Australia.
Joosup KimStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Dominique A CadilhacStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8162-682X
Natasha A LanninDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Natasha.Lannin@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2066-8345
AuSCR Consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the processes and outcomes of care in patients who had a stroke treated in urban versus rural hospitals in Australia.

designObservational study using data from a multicentre national registry.

settingData from 50 acute care hospitals in Australia (25 urban, 25 rural) which participated in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry during the period 2010-2015.

participantsPatients were divided into two groups (urban, rural) according to the Australian Standard Geographical Classification Remoteness Area classification. Data pertaining to 28 115 patients who had a stroke were analysed, of whom 8159 (29%) were admitted to hospitals located within rural areas. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Regional differences in processes of care (admission to a stroke unit, thrombolysis for ischaemic stroke, discharge on antihypertensive medication and provision of a care plan), and survival analyses up to 180 days and health-related quality of life at 90-180 days.

resultsCompared with those admitted to urban hospitals, patients in rural hospitals less often received thrombolysis (urban 12.7% vs rural 7.5%, p<0.001) or received treatment in stroke units (urban 82.2% vs rural 76.5%, p<0.001), and fewer were discharged with a care plan (urban 61.3% vs rural 44.7%, p<0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of survival or overall self-reported quality of life.

conclusionsRural access to recommended components of acute stroke care was comparatively poorer; however, this did not appear to impact health outcomes at approximately 6 months.

Indexed as

Brain IschemiaStrokeAustraliaHumansQuality of LifeRegistriesaccident & emergency medicineorganisation of health servicesquality in health carestroke medicine

Identifiers

PMID33795291
PMCPMC8021749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.