The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving stroke rehabilitation. A controlled study.
Abstract
Assessment of stroke rehabilitation is complicated by the heterogeneity of patients and settings and by difficulties in disentangling effects of organization from effects of types and amounts of treatment input. A prospective controlled study was undertaken in 245 stroke patients stratified into three groups according to prognosis and managed on a stroke rehabilitation unit (n = 124) or general medical wards (n = 121). Patients were randomly allocated to either setting 2 weeks after stroke and were comparable for baseline characteristics. Patients on general medical wards received more physiotherapy on average (16.2 +/- 7.2 versus 14.3 +/- 3.2 hours; P < .05) but similar amounts of occupational therapy (9.3 +/- 2.8 versus 9.5 +/- 3.2 hours) compared with stroke unit patients. More time was spent on individual rehabilitation on the stroke unit compared with general wards (P < .001). Functional abilities at discharge, destination of discharge, and length of hospital stay in patients with good prognosis were comparable in both settings. Patients with poor prognosis managed on general wards showed higher mortality (P < .05) and longer hospital stay (123.2 +/- 48.2 versus 52.3 +/- 19.8 days; P < .001), but functional abilities at discharge in survivors were comparable with those of stroke unit patients. Patients with intermediate prognosis had significantly better outcome on the stroke unit, with more patients being discharged home (75% versus 52%; P < .001), shorter average length of hospital stay (48.7 +/- 17.2 versus 104.6 +/- 28.6 days; P < .001), and better functional abilities at discharge (P < .05). Stroke units improve outcome and reduce hospital stay without increasing therapy time. Their effectiveness may be enhanced by patient selection.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Clinical Gait Assessment in the Neurologically Impaired
Holden, M. K., Gill, K. M., Magliozzi, M. R., Nathan, J., & Piehl-Baker, L. (1984) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/64.1.35 · Cited by 1,499
Cited by
Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke
Collaboratio, S. U. T. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000197.pub2 · Cited by 1,314
Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke
Brady, M. C., Kelly, H., Godwin, J., Enderby, P., & Campbell, P. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000425.pub4 · Cited by 1,159
Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial
Kwakkel, G., Wagenaar, R. C., Twisk, J. W., Lankhorst, G. J., & Koetsier, J. C. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)09477-x · Cited by 938
Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part I: Outcome. The Copenhagen stroke study
Jørgensen, H. S., Nakayama, H., Raaschou, H. O., Vive-Larsen, J., Støier, M., & Olsen, T. S. (1995) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/s0003-9993(95)80567-2 · Cited by 538
Treatment in a Combined Acute and Rehabilitation Stroke Unit: Which Aspects Are Most Important?
Indredavik, B., Bakke, F., Slørdahl, S. A., Rokseth, R., & Håheim, L. L. (1999) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.30.5.917 · Cited by 368
Metadata
- Authors
- Kalra, L., Dale, P., & Crome, P.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 1993-10
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1462-1467
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2084195775
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.11
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving stroke rehabilitation. A controlled study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.24.10.1462
- The paper
- Kalra, L., Dale, P., & Crome, P. (1993). Improving stroke rehabilitation. A controlled study. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.24.10.1462
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.