Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39589502›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2024

[Neurorehabilitation].

Christian Dohle, Mareike Schrader

Abstract readReviewEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Christian DohleP.A.N. Zentrum für Post-Akute Neurorehabilitation, Fürst Donnersmarck-Stiftung zu Berlin, Wildkanzelweg 28, 13465, Berlin, Deutschland. C.Dohle@panzentrum.de.
Mareike SchraderP.A.N. Zentrum für Post-Akute Neurorehabilitation, Fürst Donnersmarck-Stiftung zu Berlin, Wildkanzelweg 28, 13465, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurorehabilitation is characterized by a structured, interdisciplinary collaboration among various professional fields, focused on achieving individualized participation goals for patients. This process considers the different levels of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), specifically function, activity and participation. Multiple evidence-based treatment procedures targeting specific mechanisms of action are available for the rehabilitation of disorders associated with various diseases. Treatment must be administered with sufficient intensity to be effective. The neurological phase model encompasses several stages of care ranging from acute treatment in phase A to phase D for patients who are largely independent. Early rehabilitation phase B and rehabilitation phase C combine acute and rehabilitation-specific tasks. Phase E supports long-term occupational and social participation, while phase F is dedicated to long-term care for severely affected patients. In the outpatient setting, the long-term care of neurologically affected patients remains insufficient due to a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration possibilities, highlighting an urgent need for expansion and improved integration between care providers.

Indexed as

Intersectoral CollaborationNeurological RehabilitationDisability EvaluationEvidence-Based MedicineGermanyHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthNervous System DiseasesPatient Care TeamInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthLong-term carePhase modelStrokeTreatment principles

Identifiers

PMID39589502
PMCPMC11611920

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.