ArticleBMJ neurology open2025
Reducing hospital length of stay with criteria-led transfer from the acute stroke unit to inpatient rehabilitation.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Criteria-led transfer allows transfer of select stroke patients to inpatient rehabilitation without rehabilitation physician review, which may be a barrier for timely transfers. Objective: Primary: determine the proportion of patients transferred via criteria-led transfer and waitlist time. Secondary: determine the number of unplanned 30-day acute hospital representations and readmissions from inpatient rehabilitation, and number of daily allied health contacts while waitlisted. Method: A single-centre retrospective analysis was conducted on all patients transferred from the acute stroke unit to inpatient rehabilitation in 2023. Results: 178 (79%) patients successfully used criteria-led transfer, 22 (9.5%) did not meet criteria and the remainder attended inpatient rehabilitation via a separate pathway. Median waitlist time (in days) was shorter for criteria led transfer patients compared with those who did not meet criteria (3 (1-5) vs 5 (3-8), p=0.005). Emergency department representation rates were lower in the criteria-led transfer cohort (30 (16.9%) vs 8 (36.3%), p=0.03) compared with those who did not meet criteria. No difference in readmission rates was seen (p=0.22). Waitlisted patients received 1 (0.5-1.5) allied health reviews daily. Conclusions: Criteria-led transfer is associated with shorter waitlist times for transfer to rehabilitation without increased adverse events. Further research is needed to determine result generalisability.
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.