Observational studyJournal of rehabilitation medicine2023
Predicting institutionalization after Subacute Stroke Rehabilitation using the 12-Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule.
Observational study in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Measurement characteristics of WHODAS 2.0 and WHODAS-Child: a systematic review of global psychometric studies in specific populations since 2010.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- The effect of rehabilitation training based on brain-computer interface on limb function in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analyses.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Bilateral cerebellar intermittent theta-burst stimulation combined with laryngeal elevation training promotes neurorestoration in post-stroke dysphagia.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Exploring the Effects of Action Observation Therapy on Swallowing Disorders in Stroke: A Functional Connectivity-Based fMRI Study.Neural plasticity · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the utility of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-12) in predicting institutionalization after subacute stroke rehabilitation.
designProspective observational study.
methodsOn a specialized rehabilitation ward, discharge WHODAS-12 scores of 156 consecutive patients (24-h National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥ 15) and assessment from their proxies were compared, and receiver operating characteristic curves for predicting institutionalization were generated. Clinician-rated assessments of functioning were applied for comparison.
resultsThirty-three percent of the patients were unfit to respond, due to the consequences of major stroke. However, both patient and proxy WHODAS-12 sum scores differentiated the community (n = 70) and institution (n = 86) groups (p = 0.02 and p < 0.0001, respectively), the discriminative accuracy (area under the curve; AUC) being 0.63 and 0.79, respectively. In proxy assessments, the institutionalized patients were significantly more impaired in all item comparisons except for emotions and concentrating. Ability to participate differentiated the groups as accurately as activities (AUC 0.75 vs 0.78, respectively). The corresponding discriminative accuracy of the clinician-rated World Health Organization (WHO) minimal generic dataset sum score and modified Rankin Scale were 0.74 and 0.79 (p < 0.0001), respectively.
conclusionDespite its brevity and subjectivity, the WHODAS-12 from proxies has shown high accuracy in predicting institutionalization after subacute rehabilitation of individuals with major stroke, the impact of participation being as relevant as that of 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.