Effects of Postacute Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation Including Exercise in Out-of-Hospital Settings in the Aged: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, ISSN: 0003-9993, Vol: 100, Issue: 3, Page: 530-550
2019
- 27Citations
- 163Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations27
- Citation Indexes26
- 26
- CrossRef14
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures163
- Readers163
- 163
Review Description
Many older individuals receive rehabilitation in an out-of-hospital setting (OOHS) after acute hospitalization; however, its effect on mobility and unplanned hospital readmission is unclear. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on this topic. Medline OVID, Embase OVID, and CINAHL were searched from their inception until February 22, 2018. OOHS (ie, skilled nursing facilities, outpatient clinics, or community-based at home) randomized trials studying the effect of multidisciplinary rehabilitation were selected, including those assessing exercise in older patients (mean age ≥65y) after discharge from hospital after an acute illness. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, performed independent data extraction, and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled using fixed- or random-effect models as appropriate. The main outcomes were mobility at and unplanned hospital readmission within 3 months of discharge. A total of 15 studies (1255 patients) were included in the systematic review and 12 were included in the meta-analysis (7 assessing mobility using the 6-minute walk distance [6MWD] test and 7 assessing unplanned hospital readmission). Based on the 6MWD, patients receiving rehabilitation walked an average of 23 m more than controls (95% confidence interval [CI]=: −1.34 to 48.32; I 2 : 51%). Rehabilitation did not lower the 3-month risk of unplanned hospital readmission (risk ratio: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.73-1.19; I 2 : 34%). The risk of bias was present, mainly due to the nonblinded outcome assessment in 3 studies, and 7 studies scored this unclearly. OOHS-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation leads to improved mobility in older patients 3 months after they are discharged from hospital following an acute illness and is not associated with a lower risk of unplanned hospital readmission within 3 months of discharge. However, the wide 95% CIs indicate that the evidence is not robust.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999318303575; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.05.010; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85051001982&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29902471; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003999318303575; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.05.010
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know