The DOI matches its Crossref record.
How Do Stroke Units Improve Patient Outcomes?: A Collaborative Systematic Review of the Randomized Trials
Abstract
Background and Purpose We sought to clarify the way in which organized inpatient (stroke unit) care can produce reductions in case fatality and in the need for institutional care after stroke. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of a collaborative systematic review of all randomized trials that compared organized inpatient (stroke unit) care with contemporary conventional care. Nineteen trials were included, of which 18 (3246 patients) could provide outcome data on death, place of residence, and final functional outcome. Data were less complete (but always available for at least 12 trials; 1611 patients) for subgroup analyses examining timing and cause of death and outcomes in patients with different levels of severity of initial stroke. Results The reduction in case fatality of patients managed in a stroke unit setting developed between 1 and 4 weeks after the index stroke. The reduction in the odds of death was evident across all causes of death and most marked for those deaths considered to be secondary to immobility. However, data were insufficient to permit a firm conclusion. The relative increase in the number of patients discharged home from stroke units as opposed to conventional care was largely attributable to an increase in the number of patients returning home physically independent. Across the range of stroke severity, stroke unit care was associated with nonsignificant increases in the number of patients regaining independence. Conclusions Within the limitations of the available data, we conclude that organized inpatient stroke unit care probably benefits a wide range of stroke patients in a variety of different ways, ie, reducing death from secondary complications of stroke and reducing the need for institutional care through a reduction in disability.
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
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
Lackland, D. T., Roccella, E. J., Deutsch, A. F., Fornage, M., George, M. G., Howard, G., Kissela, B. M., Kittner, S. J., Lichtman, J. H., Lisabeth, L. D., et al. (2014) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000437068.30550.cf · Cited by 815
Writing SMART rehabilitation goals and achieving goal attainment scaling: a practical guide
Bovend'Eerdt, T. J., Botell, R. E., & Wade, D. T. (2009) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/0269215508101741 · Cited by 754
Bernhardt (2004) · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000120727.40792.40 · Cited by 593
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
- Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 1997-11
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2139-2144
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2982630580
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.54
- 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: How Do Stroke Units Improve Patient Outcomes?: A Collaborative Systematic Review of the Randomized Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.28.11.2139
- The paper
- Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration. (1997). How Do Stroke Units Improve Patient Outcomes?: A Collaborative Systematic Review of the Randomized Trials. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.28.11.2139
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.