Abstract
BackgroundThe benefits of stroke unit care in terms of reducing death, dependency and institutional care were demonstrated in a 2009 Cochrane review carried out by the Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration.MethodsAs requested by the Belgian health authorities, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of acute stroke units was performed. Clinical trials mentioned in the original Cochrane review were included. In addition, an electronic database search on Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was conducted to identify trials published since 2006. Trials investigating acute stroke units compared to alternative care were eligible for inclusion. Study quality was appraised according to the criteria recommended by Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and the GRADE system. In the meta-analysis, dichotomous outcomes were estimated by calculating odds ratios (OR) and continuous outcomes were estimated by calculating standardized mean differences. The weight of a study was calculated based on inverse variance.ResultsEvidence from eight trials comparing acute stroke unit and conventional care (general medical ward) were retained for the main synthesis and analysis. The findings from this study were broadly in line with the original Cochrane review: acute stroke units can improve survival and independency, as well as reduce the chance of hospitalization and the length of inpatient stay. The improvement with stroke unit care on mortality was less conclusive and only reached borderline level of significance (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00, P = 0.05). This improvement became statistically non-significant (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, P = 0.12) when data from two unpublished trials (Goteborg-Ostra and Svendborg) were added to the analysis. After further also adding two additional trials (Beijing, Stockholm) with very short observation periods (until discharge), the difference between acute stroke units and general medical wards on death remained statistically non-significant (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.01, P = 0.06). Furthermore, based on figures reported by the clinical trials included in this study, a slightly higher proportion of patients became dependent after receiving care in stroke units than those treated in general medical wards – although the difference was not statistically significant. This result could have an impact on the future demand for healthcare services for individuals that survive a stroke but became dependent on their care-givers.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate that a well-conducted meta-analysis can produce results that can be of value to policymakers but the choice of inclusion/exclusion criteria and outcomes in this context needs careful consideration. The financing of interventions such as stroke units that increase independency and reduce inpatient stays are worthwhile in a context of an ageing population with increasing care needs. One limitation of this study was the selection of trials published in only four languages: English, French, Dutch and German. This choice was pragmatic in the context of this study, where the objective was to support health authorities in their decision processes.
Highlights
The benefits of stroke unit care in terms of reducing death, dependency and institutional care were demonstrated in a 2009 Cochrane review carried out by the Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration
Why was dependency not reduced with acute stroke units? The results of the present study suggest that acute stroke unit care was not superior to general medical ward care in terms of reducing dependency
Similar trade-offs occur when deciding whether to include unpublished trials/data, which may alleviate publication bias but may lower data quality and/or introduce other types of bias. This point is demonstrated by this study where, for the same outcome, the results on acute stroke unit care differed from the results of the Cochrane review
Summary
The benefits of stroke unit care in terms of reducing death, dependency and institutional care were demonstrated in a 2009 Cochrane review carried out by the Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration. Stroke is a major health challenge, for Western healthcare systems. Alongside death it generates serious long-term disability, placing a substantial burden on families and the wider community. An important intervention in this area of healthcare is the stroke unit, which was introduced during the 1950s [2,3] This term refers to organized inpatient care for stroke patients, provided by a multidisciplinary team specialized in stroke management [4,5]. The Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration (SUTC) has carried out Cochrane reviews on stroke unit trials since 1997 [4,6,7]. The series of SUTC reviews is widely cited by clinical guidelines and national stroke strategies as the evidence base for their recommendations on stroke unit care [8,9,10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
