BACKGROUND: Riks-Stroke, the Swedish national quality register on stroke care, provides unique opportunities to evaluate stroke units in routine clinical care. METHODS: Basic patient characteristics, process indicators and outcome variables are recorded in all 85 hospitals admitting acute stroke patients. A 3-month follow-up is included. RESULTS: There are wide variations between hospitals in the proportion of patients admitted to a stroke unit, in secondary prevention and in the proportion of patients in institutional care at 3 months. Even after adjustment for available prognostic indicators, case fatality is lower and functional outcome is better in patients treated in stroke units than in patients treated in general wards. CONCLUSION: Riks-Stroke shows that outcome is consistently better in patients treated in a stroke unit than in general wards, not only in randomised trials but also in routine stroke care. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
BACKGROUND:Riks-Stroke, the Swedish national quality register on stroke care, provides unique opportunities to evaluate stroke units in routine clinical care. METHODS: Basic patient characteristics, process indicators and outcome variables are recorded in all 85 hospitals admitting acute strokepatients. A 3-month follow-up is included. RESULTS: There are wide variations between hospitals in the proportion of patients admitted to a stroke unit, in secondary prevention and in the proportion of patients in institutional care at 3 months. Even after adjustment for available prognostic indicators, case fatality is lower and functional outcome is better in patients treated in stroke units than in patients treated in general wards. CONCLUSION:Riks-Stroke shows that outcome is consistently better in patients treated in a stroke unit than in general wards, not only in randomised trials but also in routine stroke care. Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
Authors: L J Gray; N Sprigg; P M W Bath; P Sørensen; E Lindenstrøm; G Boysen; P P De Deyn; P Friis; D Leys; R Marttila; J-E Olsson; D O'Neill; B Ringelstein; J-J van der Sande; A G G Turpie Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2005-07-26 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: G Bergström; G Berglund; A Blomberg; J Brandberg; G Engström; J Engvall; M Eriksson; U de Faire; A Flinck; M G Hansson; B Hedblad; O Hjelmgren; C Janson; T Jernberg; Å Johnsson; L Johansson; L Lind; C-G Löfdahl; O Melander; C J Östgren; A Persson; M Persson; A Sandström; C Schmidt; S Söderberg; J Sundström; K Toren; A Waldenström; H Wedel; J Vikgren; B Fagerberg; A Rosengren Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Eva Zupanic; Mia von Euler; Ingemar Kåreholt; Beatriz Contreras Escamez; Johan Fastbom; Bo Norrving; Dorota Religa; Milica G Kramberger; Bengt Winblad; Kristina Johnell; Maria Eriksdotter; Sara Garcia-Ptacek Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Dewan Md Emdadul Hoque; Varuni Kumari; Masuma Hoque; Rasa Ruseckaite; Lorena Romero; Sue M Evans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Xiaoping Lin; Kasey Wallis; Stephanie A Ward; Henry Brodaty; Perminder S Sachdev; Sharon L Naismith; Karolina Krysinska; John McNeil; Christopher C Rowe; Susannah Ahern Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 3.921