ArticleHealth science reports2025
What Is the Optimal Length of Stay for Effective Inpatient Neurorehabilitation? A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of the Functional Status of Patients After Stroke Depending on the Length of Stay in the Rehabilitation Ward-A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- What Is the Optimal Length of Stay for Effective Inpatient Neurorehabilitation? A Retrospective Cohort Study.Health science reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The length of stay (LOS) in inpatient rehabilitation varies significantly and remains ambiguous. Therefore, we sought to determine the optimal length of inpatient rehabilitation. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a specialized inpatient rehabilitation hospital. Clinical data from 258 patients with neurological disorders, including stroke, spinal cord injury, and multiple sclerosis, were collected and analyzed. The primary outcome measure was the change in patients' functional status as assessed by the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). FIM scores were recorded at 21-day intervals throughout the hospitalization period. To evaluate the effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation over time, trends in FIM score changes were examined using effect size calculations. Additionally, Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) were employed to analyze repeated measures and account for intra-subject correlations across the different time points. Result: In spinal cord injury (SCI) survivors, the trend of improvement continued with significant effectiveness:1.847 (95% CI: 1.445, 2.249), 3.320 (95% CI: 2.495, 4.144) and 3.036 (95% CI: 1.426, 4.645) during the first, second and discharge assessments, respectively, compared to Admission time. Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) shown significant effectiveness only during the first 21-day period: 1.276 (95% CI: 0.723, 1.830). Stroke survivors also showed significantly improved their FIM over the three 21-day periods: first period:1.637 (95% CI: 1.284, 1.990), second period: 2.952 (95% CI: 2.106, 3.802), and discharge:3.804 (95% CI: 2.944, 4.668). Conclusions: LOS exceeding 42 days resulted in a significant increase in the FIM scores of stroke patients. However, an extended stay of 21 days in the MS group and 42 days in the SCI group did not demonstrate significant improvement.
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.