ArticleJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea)2025
Optimizing the Efficacy of a Rehabilitation Program for Neurological Critical Patients.
Article in Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea), 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeExisting rehabilitation programs for neurological critical patients are based on early mobilization or exercise. However, whether there is an optimal rehabilitation program in terms of its rehabilitation efficacy needs further exploration.
methodsAn optimal rehabilitation program for neurological critical patients was developed in July 2020 and evaluated in December 2020. Retrospective data on the duration of the rehabilitation intervention, mortality rate, treatment adverse events (AE), and functional status were collected in the hospital electronic database from January to June 2020. The Manchester Mobility Score (MMS), UK Medical Research Council (MRC) muscle strength score, and Barthel Index for the ability to perform the activities of daily living were used to evaluate body function.
resultsThe incidence of nonfatal serious AEs was significantly lower in patients treated with the optimized rehabilitation program (1.71% vs. 3.41%), while the rehabilitation time was significantly shorter (23.17±6.99 days vs. 26.34±6.25 days, mean±standard deviation) and there were significant improvements in activity ability (MMS: 10.88±3.31 vs. 7.89±3.31), muscle strength (MRC muscle strength score: 9.56±3.84 vs. 7.84±3.36), and activities of daily living (Barthel Index: 27.36±9.34 vs. 19.47±6.25). Importantly, the nutritional status of the patients was also significantly improved by the optimal program.
conclusionsThe optimized rehabilitation program was superior to the nonoptimized program in decreasing AEs and improving the activity ability, muscle strength, and ability to perform the activities of daily living.
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.