SynthesisJournal of translational medicine2025
Comparative analysis of burden of topmost disorders requiring rehabilitation services: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The longitudinal relationship between interoceptive sensibility and self-management behavior in stroke patients: a cross-lagged panel network analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRehabilitation is an essential health service that should be available for all with health conditions affecting functioning in daily life. Initiatives for equitable distribution of scarce and limited rehabilitation resources are frequently guided by burden of diseases measures. Most studies on burden of diseases have laid greater emphasis on disability adjusted life years (DALYs) and rarely compared these burdens among conditions. This present study aims to systematically review and compare the burden of the top 10 GBD ranking of disorders.
methodThis review was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022316091). PubMed and Google Scholar were systematically searched as well as a manual search of grey literatures from 01/01/1990 to 29/02/2022. The results of this review were reported based on PRISMA guideline. Meta-analysis results were presented using forest plots and summary tables.
resultsA total of 11,367 studies were obtained from the searches, while the findings of 55 studies (17,753,434 participants) were reviewed. Majority of the studies were conducted in high-income-countries (56.1%) though, all the studies on neonatal disorders (100.0%) and congenital birth disorders (100.0%) came from the low-and-middle-income-countries. Neonatal disorders, stroke and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) topped the rank of disease burden. Overall, the burden of neurological disorders and their associated risk factors (aRFs), in terms of disease prevalence, were evaluated to be 36.75% while their mortality rate was 29.90%. Neurological conditions and aRFs accounted for 61.83% of total economic burden.
conclusionNeonatal disorders, stroke and IHD are the three most burdensome disorders. There is therefore need for greater focus of rehabilitation attention and resources in the coming decades.
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.