Cited by 44Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryDysphagia Assessment and ManagementClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology

Nutrition Support (Tube Feeding) as a Rehabilitation Intervention

James, Roberta, Gines, Deon, Menlove, Angela, Horn, Susan D., Gassaway, Julie, Smout, Randall J.·2005·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Unlabelled James R, Gines D, Menlove A, Horn SD, Gassaway J, Smout RJ. Nutrition support (tube feeding) as a rehabilitation intervention. Objective To describe site variation in use of enteral feeding and its association with stroke rehabilitation outcomes, controlling for a variety of confounding variables. Design Prospective observational cohort study. Setting Six inpatient rehabilitation facilities in the United States. Participants Patients (N=919) from the Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project database with moderate or severe stroke who were discharged to home, community, or skilled nursing facility. Interventions Not applicable. Main outcome measures Change in total, motor, and cognitive FIM instrument scores and change in severity of illness. Results Monitoring of nutritional status and the frequency of tube-feeding interventions for patients with moderate and severe stroke varied significantly among sites. Patients with tube feeding had higher severity of illness and lower functioning on admission compared with patients who did not receive tube feeding. However, when we controlled for severity of illness, admission FIM score, and other important covariates, we found that patients with severe strokes who were tube fed for more than 25% of their stay had greater increases in total, motor, and cognitive FIM scores and greater improvement in severity of illness by discharge. Conclusions Nutrition support (tube feeding) is an effective therapy in rehabilitation servi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.07.314

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
James, R., Gines, D., Menlove, A., Horn, S. D., Gassaway, J., & Smout, R. J.
Affiliations
  • International Severity Information Systems (United States) (US)
  • LDS Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Horn, Susan D.
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-12
Volume
86
Issue
12
Pages
82-92
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986208499
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (H133B 990005)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Keywords
tube feeding, enteral nutrition, stroke rehabilitation, severe stroke, functional independence, motor function, cognitive function, nutritional monitoring, inpatient rehabilitation, site variation, disease severity
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nutritional Status, Prospective Studies, Rehabilitation Centers, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome

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