ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Cost Utility Analysis of Multidisciplinary Postacute Care for Stroke: A Prospective Six-Hospital Cohort Study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of post-acute care for patients with cerebral vascular disease in Taiwan between 2014 and 2023: a narrative synthesis.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Therapeutic potential and mechanisms of rehabilitation interventions in preventing cancer metastasis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Impact of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice on Functional Improvements Among Post-Acute Stroke Survivors: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Efficacy and Cost over 12 Hospitalization Weeks of Postacute Care for Stroke.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Risk factors of nasogastric tube removal failure in acute ischemic stroke patients: a 3-months follow-up cohort study at a single institute.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Few studies have compared the optimal duration and intensity of organized multidisciplinary neurological/rehabilitative care delivered in a regional/district hospital with the standard rehabilitative care delivered in the general neurology/rehabilitation ward of a medical center. This study measured functional outcomes and conducted cost-utility analysis of an organized multidisciplinary postacute care (PAC) project in secondary care compared with standard rehabilitative care delivered in tertiary care. Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled 1,476 patients who had a stroke between March 2014 and March 2018 and had a modified Rankin scale score of 2-4. After exact matching for age ± 1 year, sex, year of stroke diagnosis, nasogastric tube, and Foley catheter and propensity score matching for the other covariates, we obtained 120 patients receiving PAC (the PAC group) from four regional/district hospitals and 120 patients not receiving PAC (the non-PAC group) from two medical centers. Results: At baseline, the non-PAC group showed significantly better functional outcomes than the PAC group, including EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Barthel index (BI). During weeks 7-12 of rehabilitation, improvements in all functional outcomes were significantly larger in the PAC group ( Conclusions: The PAC project saved costs and significantly improved the functional outcomes of patients with stroke with slight to moderately severe disabilities. Randomized control trials are required to corroborate these results.
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.