Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36313511›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Variation in stroke care at the hospital level: A cross-sectional multicenter study.

Charlotte Lens, Ellen Coeckelberghs, Deborah Seys, Jelle Demeestere, Caroline Weltens, Kris Vanhaecht, Robin Lemmens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

7 authors.

Charlotte LensDepartment of Public Health, Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ellen CoeckelberghsDepartment of Public Health, Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Deborah SeysDepartment of Public Health, Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jelle DemeestereDepartment of Neurology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Caroline WeltensDepartment of Oncology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Kris VanhaechtDepartment of Public Health, Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Robin LemmensDepartment of Neurology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Stroke is one of the leading causes of mortality and disability. Improving patient outcomes can be achieved by improving stroke care and adherence to guidelines. Since wide variation in adherence rates for stroke guidelines still exists, we aimed to describe and compare stroke care variability within Belgian hospitals. Materials and methods: An observational, multicenter study was performed in 29 Belgian hospitals. We retrospectively collected patient characteristics, quality indicators, and time metrics from the last 30 consecutive patients per hospital, diagnosed with ischemic stroke in 2019 with structured questionnaires. Mean adherence ratios (%) ± SD (minimum - maximum) were calculated. Results: We analyzed 870 patient records from 29 hospitals. Results showed large inter- and intrahospitals variations in adherence for various indicators. Almost all the patients received brain imaging (99.7%) followed by admission at a stroke unit in 82.9% of patients. Of patients not receiving thrombolysis, 92.5% of patients were started on antithrombotic drugs. Indicators with moderate median adherence but large interhospital variability were glycemia monitoring [82.3 ± 16.7% (26.7-100.0%)], performing clinical neurological examination and documentation of stroke severity [63.1 ± 36.8% (0-100%)], and screening for activities of daily living [51.1 ± 40.3% (0.0-100.0%)]. Other indicators lacked adequate adherence: swallowing function screening [37.0 ± 30.4% (0.0-93.3%)], depression screening [20.2 ± 35.8% (0.0-100%)], and timely body temperature measurement [15.1 ± 17.0% (0.0-60%)]. Conclusion: We identified high adherence to guidelines for some indicators, but lower rates with large interhospital variability for other recommendations also based on robust evidence. Improvement strategies should be implemented to improve the latter.

Indexed as

adherencecare processguidelinesstrokevariation

Identifiers

PMID36313511
PMCPMC9606690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.