The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Outcome of Subacute Stroke Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
Background and Purpose —Organized acute stroke treatment reduces mortality, functional deficits, and the need of institutionalization after stroke. It is largely unknown whether the effects of treatment are due to early or subacute efforts. The aim of this randomized, controlled study was to test the hypothesis that rehabilitation of stroke patients in the subacute phase in a hospital rehabilitation unit is beneficial in reducing death and dependency and increasing health-related quality of life. Methods —251 patients initially treated in the hospital were randomized to subacute rehabilitation in a hospital rehabilitation unit (n=127) or to the health services in the municipality (n=124) and were followed up for 7 months. Results —The combined outcome of patients being dead or dependent (Barthel Index score of <75) was 23% in the hospital group and 38% in the municipality group ( P =.01). Seven-month survival rates were 90.6% and 83.9% ( P =.11), respectively. Dependency in activities of daily living was 12.6% in the hospital group and 25.0% in the municipality group ( P =.07). Patients with a BI score of <50 before rehabilitation had significantly better outcome in the hospital rehabilitation unit, with fewer patients becoming dependent ( P =.005) and patients having higher Scandinavian Stroke Scale ( P =.026) and BI scores ( P =.005). No significant differences in health-related quality of life were found. Many patients treated in the municipalities (30%) did not receive any organized rehabilitation in this study. Conclusions —Subacute rehabilitation of stroke patients in a hospital-based rehabilitation unit improves outcome. Patients with moderate or severe stroke appear to benefit most.
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
Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care: A Clinical Practice Guideline
Duncan, P. W., Zorowitz, R., Bates, B., Choi, J. Y., Glasberg, J. J., Graham, G. D., Katz, R. C., Lamberty, K., & Reker, D. (2005) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000180861.54180.ff · Cited by 1,046
Evidence-Based Guidelines for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Women: 2007 Update
Mosca, L., Banka, C. L., Benjamin, E. J., Berra, K., Bushnell, C., Dolor, R. J., Ganiats, T. G., Gomes, A. S., Gornik, H. L., Gracia, C., et al. (2007) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.02.020 · Cited by 757
Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: Facts and theories
Kwakkel, G., Kollen, B., & Lindeman, E. (2004) · Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience · doi:10.3233/rnn-2004-00282 · Cited by 727
Bernhardt (2004) · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000120727.40792.40 · Cited by 593
Metadata
- Authors
- Rønning, O. M., & Guldvog, B.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 1998-04
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 779-784
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2112520989
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.50
- 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: Outcome of Subacute Stroke Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.29.4.779
- The paper
- Rønning, O. M., & Guldvog, B. (1998). Outcome of Subacute Stroke Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.29.4.779
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.