MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2281460734 · doi:10.1161/str.43.suppl_1.a3474

Abstract 3474: Early Supported Discharge for Post-Stroke Inpatient Rehabilitation: Who and What are we Talking About?

2012· article· en· W2281460734 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Meyer, Robert Teasell, Amardeep Thind, John J. Koval, Mark Speechley

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCandidacyRehabilitationCINAHLStroke (engine)Inclusion and exclusion criteriaMEDLINEPsychological interventionPhysical therapyInclusion (mineral)Alternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose Early supported discharge (ESD) post stroke has been demonstrated as a cost-effective strategy for provision of rehabilitation to eligible patients. However, consensus on which patients are best-suited for ESD has yet to be established. This systematic review was designed to retrieve information on patients included in all published, peer-reviewed literature pertaining to ESD for post-stroke rehabilitation with the goal of identifying common criteria used to infer candidacy for ESD. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed in three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL) for peer-reviewed journal articles evaluating ESD for post-stroke rehabilitation published between January 1980 and September 2010. Research studies were considered if 1) they only included patients with primary diagnosis of stroke 2) the intervention under study was outpatient or community-based rehabilitation (ESD) as an alternative to in-hospital rehabilitation and 3) inclusion/ exclusion criteria and/or patient data at time of discharge to the community were reported. Information about study design, inclusion/exclusion criteria, discharge patient data and study results were collected. Results In total, 612 journal articles were screened and 20 were included for further assessment. No consensus on ESD suitability could be derived from the identified studies. Interventions under study ranged from organized in-home rehabilitation to “hospital at home” where therapy was provided by family members. On average, 34.7% (13%-70%) of patients screened for ESD candidacy were identified as suitable, but little consistency in screening procedures or criteria were noted. Recruitment generally took place within the first week post stroke but extended to as many as 4 weeks post stroke, while the average day of discharge into an ESD program ranged from 1 to as many as 42 days post stroke. Nine articles reported information about patient’s functional level within 48 hours of discharge to ESD, however, 27 different measures of patient function were reported. Conclusions Most research to date suggests that ESD is an effective strategy for providing rehabilitation to patients post-stroke. However, based on current research it is not possible to derive definitive criteria by which candidates for ESD can be identified. Future research is warranted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→