Observational studyBMC public health2025
Quality of care for acute ischemic stroke in China during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective study using a National database.
Observational study in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute ischemic stroke (AIS) is one of the most time-sensitive diseases, which requires prompt medical services. Delayed treatment and resource scarcity during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may affect the quality of AIS care and increase the risk of adverse outcomes for patients.
methodsThe study used data from China's National Medical Quality Database spanning from January 1, 2019, to May 31, 2022. Quality of care was gauged utilizing 15 indicators, featuring 12 quality indicators (QIs) and 3 composite indicators. We used mixed-effects and interrupted time series models to compare care quality pre- and post-pandemic. Utilization rates of 15 indicators were compared across different age and gender groups to evaluate healthcare disparities. Multilevel Logistic regression and structural equation modeling assessed the impact of the 3 composite indicators on outcome (in-hospital mortality or 30-day readmission) during the pandemic.
resultsUtilization rates for 10 of 12 QIs and three composite indicators declined rapidly after the COVID-19 outbreak, but later improved. The most significant drop was observed for rehabilitation (QI12), with a decrease of 50.06% (P < 0.0001). The overall treatment quality (Score) showed a decrease of -14.44% (95% CI -15.62% to -13.26%; P < 0.0001), and experienced a long-term trend change of 0.58 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.75; P < 0.0001). Female patients had lower rates for 11 QIs and all composite indicators compared with male patients, with the greatest difference noted in dysphagia screening (66.45% vs. 69.87%, P = 0.0472). Patients aged 75 years or older had lower rates for 9 QIs and all composite indicators compared with other age groups, with the greatest difference in anticoagulation therapy (difference = 10.01%, P < 0.0001). High-quality care was significantly associated with lower rates of adverse outcomes (OR = 0.965; 95% CI 0.962 to 0.968; P < 0.0001).
conclusionsThe COVID-19 outbreak has deepened the gap between optimal care and clinical practice, which then gradually improved. During the pandemic, high-quality care was important to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes, but there were gender and age differences in the provision of health-care quality.
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.