Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Randomized Trial of Physical Rehabilitation for Very Frail Nursing Home Residents

Mulrow, Cynthia D.·1994·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
DOI 10.1001/jama.1994.03510310049037
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Past studies suggest multidisciplinary interventions that include physical therapy (PT) can improve function of nursing home residents. This trial specifically evaluates effects of PT for frail long-stay nursing home residents. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: One academic nursing home and eight community nursing homes. PATIENTS: A total of 194 elderly nursing home residents dependent in at least two activities of daily living residing in the nursing home for at least 3 months. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to individually tailored one-on-one PT sessions or friendly visits (FVs) three times a week for 4 months. Physical therapy included range-of-motion, strength, balance, transfer, and mobility exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Performance-based physical function assessed by the Physical Disability Index; self-perceived health status assessed with the Sickness Impact Profile; observer-reported activities of daily living; and falls. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent and 92% of PT and FV sessions, respectively, were attended; 5% and 9% of subjects dropped out in the PT group and FV group, respectively. Compared with the FV group, the PT group experienced no significant improvements in overall Physical Disability Index, Sickness Impact Profile, or activities of daily living scores. A 15.5% improvement in the mobility subscale of the Physical Disability Index was seen (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4% to 24.7%); no benefits in range-of-motion, strength, or balance subscales were found. Compared with the FV group, the PT group used assistive devices for bed mobility tasks less often (P = .06) and were less likely to use assistive devices and wheelchairs for locomotion (P < .005). There were 79 falls in the PT group vs 60 falls in the FV group (P = .11). Charge for the 4-month PT program was $1220 per subject (95% CI, $412 to $1832). CONCLUSION: This standardized physical therapy program provided modest mobility benefits for very frail long-stay nursing home residents with physical disability due to multiple comorbid conditions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1994.03510310049037

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Mulrow, C. D.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1994-02-16
Volume
271
Issue
7
Pages
519
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.1994.03510310049037
OpenAlex
W2007845973
Cited by
331
References
0
FWCI
38.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.