ReviewCureus2026
Impact of Seven-Day Versus Five-Day Inpatient Physiotherapy: A Review of Clinical and Economic Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inpatient physiotherapy is traditionally delivered on a five-day (Monday to Friday) schedule. Although prolonged bed rest leads to rapid physiological deconditioning, the clinical and economic justification for comprehensive seven-day physiotherapy remains contested, with notable disparities in implementation across hospital departments. This narrative review, with systematic components, synthesises evidence on the clinical effectiveness, economic viability, and implementation challenges of seven-day versus five-day physiotherapy models across various hospital specialties. Twenty-three studies, including randomised controlled trials, large-scale cohort studies, and systematic reviews, were analysed to evaluate outcomes such as hospital length of stay, functional independence, and cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year). The evidence indicates that seven-day physiotherapy provides consistent, high-value benefits in specific settings. In subacute rehabilitation, weekend therapy reduces length of stay by approximately 2.35 days and is highly cost-effective, saving over 41,000 Australian dollars per quality-adjusted life year. Among post-hip fracture and intensive care populations, continuous therapy accelerates discharge readiness, improves survival, and reduces severe deconditioning, with a clear dose-response relationship between therapy frequency and functional recovery. In contrast, in acute general medical and surgical wards, data from large stepped-wedge cluster trials show that routine weekend physiotherapy does not provide consistent clinical benefit, making universal coverage in these settings economically unjustified. Effective implementation requires addressing staffing skill mix, staff work-life balance, and structural inequities that limit access for vulnerable populations. Healthcare systems should therefore prioritise the implementation and funding of seven-day physiotherapy in subacute rehabilitation, acute stroke units, post-hip fracture pathways, and intensive care units while adopting targeted, criteria-based interventions in acute general internal medicine wards.
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.