ArticleJapanese journal of comprehensive rehabilitation science2026
Significance of updating discharge FIM prediction at one month after admission using multiple regression analysis.
Article in Japanese journal of comprehensive rehabilitation science, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tokunaga M, Sannomiya K, Imada Y. Significance of updating discharge FIM prediction at one month after admission using multiple regression analysis. Jpn J Compr Rehabil Sci 2026; 17: 16-23. Objective: To clarify the significance of updating predictions at one month after admission in multiple regression analyses that predict the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure (mFIM) at discharge in stroke patients. Methods: A total of 849 stroke patients admitted to a convalescent rehabilitation ward were included. The dependent variables were discharge mFIM (S prediction) and mFIM effectiveness (E prediction). Independent variables consisted of either admission data alone or admission data plus mFIM improvement during the first month after admission (plus prediction). Four models were constructed: S prediction, S plus prediction, E prediction, and E plus prediction. Absolute residuals were compared among the four groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test. When significant differences were observed, multiple comparisons were performed using the Steel-Dwass test. Results: The absolute residuals were 9.3 ± 7.2 for S prediction, 6.8 ± 5.3 for S plus prediction, 7.6 ± 7.0 for E prediction, and 6.3 ± 5.7 for E plus prediction. Significant differences were observed among the four models. Multiple comparisons revealed that S plus prediction had significantly smaller residuals than S prediction; E plus prediction was smaller than E prediction; E prediction was smaller than S prediction; and E plus prediction was smaller than S plus prediction. Conclusion: Predicting mFIM effectiveness and converting it to discharge mFIM yielded more accurate predictions than directly predicting discharge mFIM. Updating predictions at one month after admission further improved the accuracy of discharge mFIM prediction.
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.