Observational studyScientific reports2025
Effectiveness of rehabilitation dose heterogeneity for improving functional outcomes of patients with acute stroke: a nationwide observational study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 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.
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
Abstract
To examine heterogeneity in the impact of increased early rehabilitation intensity and to identify which ischemic stroke patients benefit most. We analysed 39,140 propensity score-matched ischemic stroke patients using Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Patients who received ≥ 60 min of daily rehabilitation within the 14 hospital days were compared with those who received less, in terms of achieving a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0, 1, or 2 at 60 days. We employed a causal forest model to estimate individualized treatment effectiveness and assessed for heterogeneity in rehabilitation impact across subgroups. Patients in the highest-benefit quartile showed substantial functional improvement (mean Conditional Average Treatment Effect: +17.1%; 95% CI, 15.3-19.0%), characterized by severe baseline activities of daily living (ADL) impairment, age, fewer comorbidities, higher socioeconomic status, better consciousness, and higher rates of reperfusion therapy. Conversely, patients in the lowest-benefit quartile, typically older with moderate ADL impairment, high comorbidities, low socioeconomic status, and limited reperfusion therapy, showed minimal or negative benefit (-16.5%; 95% CI, -18.1% to -14.9%). Rehabilitation dosing impact varied substantially regarding functional ability, with patients having severe strokes, age, fewer comorbidities, and better baseline consciousness deriving the greatest benefit from increased rehabilitation dosing.
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.