Bent Indredavik

Bio: Bent Indredavik is an academic researcher from Norwegian University of Science and Technology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Stroke & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 96 publications receiving 7022 citations.

Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke

Abstract: BACKGROUND Organised stroke unit care is provided by multidisciplinary teams that exclusively manage stroke patients in a dedicated ward (stroke, acute, rehabilitation, comprehensive), with a mobile stroke team or within a generic disability service (mixed rehabilitation ward). OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of stroke unit care compared with alternative forms of care for patients following a stroke. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched April 2006), the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised and prospective controlled clinical trials comparing organised inpatient stroke unit care with an alternative service. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors initially assessed eligibility and trial quality. Descriptive details and trial data were then checked with the co-ordinators of the original trials. MAIN RESULTS Thirty-one trials, involving 6936 participants, compared stroke unit care with an alternative service; more organised care was consistently associated with improved outcomes. Twenty-six trials (5592 participants) compared stroke unit care with general wards. Stroke unit care showed reductions in the odds of death recorded at final (median one year) follow up (odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.98; P = 0.02), the odds of death or institutionalised care (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92; P = 0.0006) and death or dependency (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92; P = 0.001). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the observed benefits remained when the analysis was restricted to trials that used formal randomisation procedures with blinded outcome assessment. Outcomes were independent of patient age, sex or stroke severity, but appeared to be better in stroke units based in a discrete ward. There was no indication that organised stroke unit care resulted in a longer hospital stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Stroke patients who receive organised inpatient care in a stroke unit are more likely to be alive, independent, and living at home one year after the stroke. The benefits were most apparent in units based in a discrete ward. No systematic increase was observed in the length of inpatient stay.

Benefit of a stroke unit: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract: In a randomized controlled trial we compared the clinical outcome of acute stroke patients, 110 of whom were allocated to treatment in a stroke unit and 110 to treatment in general medical wards. No significant difference existed between these groups with regard to sex, age, marital status, medical history, or functional impairment on admission. Outcome was measured at 6 and 52 weeks after the stroke by the proportion of patients at home, the proportion of patients in an institution, the mortality, and the functional state. After 6 weeks 56.4% of the patients randomized to the stroke unit and 32.7% of the patients randomized to the general medical wards were at home (p = 0.0004), and after 52 weeks 62.7% and 44.6%, respectively, were at home (p = 0.002). After 6 weeks 36.3% of the patients from the stroke unit and 50.0% from the general medical wards were in an institution (p = 0.02); after 52 weeks 12.7% and 22.7%, respectively, were institutionalized (p = 0.016). After 6 weeks mortality was 7.3% for the stroke unit group and 17.3% for the general medical wards group (p = 0.027). After 52 weeks mortality was 24.6% for the stroke unit group and 32.7% for the general medical wards group (difference not significant). Functional state was significantly better for patients treated in the stroke unit after both 6 and 52 weeks. We conclude that care of patients with acute stroke in a stroke unit improves clinical outcome compared with treatment in general medical wards.

Treatment in a combined acute and rehabilitation stroke unit: which aspects are most important?

Abstract: Background and Purpose—We have previously shown that treatment of acute stroke patients in our stroke unit (SU) compared with treatment in general ward (GWs) improves short- and long-term survival ...

Stroke Unit Treatment Long-term Effects

Abstract: Background and Purpose We have previously shown that treatment in our combined acute and rehabilitation Stroke Unit improves outcome during the first year after onset of stroke compared with stroke patients treated in general wards. The aim of the present trial was to examine the long-term effects of the stroke unit care. Methods In a randomized controlled trial, 110 patients with symptoms and signs of an acute stroke were allocated to the Stroke Unit and 110 to general wards. No significant differences existed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The outcome after 5 years was measured by the proportion of patients at home, the proportion of patients in an institution, the mortality, and the functional state assessed by Barthel Index. Results After 5 years, 38 (34.5%) of the patients randomized to the Stroke Unit and 20 (18.2%) of the patients randomized to the general wards were at home (P=.006). Sixty-five (59.1%) of the patients from the Stroke Unit and 78 (70.9%) of the patients from th...

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure

Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Abstract: Background and Purpose—The authors present an overview of the current evidence and management recommendations for evaluation and treatment of adults with acute ischemic stroke. The intended audienc...

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2017 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Abstract: WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, SCM, FAHA Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH Stephanie E. Chiuve, ScD Mary Cushman, MD, MSc, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, FAHA Rajat Deo, MD, MTR Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD, MPH James Floyd, MD, MS Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Cathleen Gillespie, MS Carmen R. Isasi, MD, PhD, FAHA Monik C. Jiménez, ScD, SM Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD Suzanne E. Judd, PhD Daniel Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Lynda Lisabeth, PhD, MPH, FAHA Simin Liu, MD, ScD, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Rachel H. Mackey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, FAHA Robert W. Neumar, MD, PhD, FAHA Latha Palaniappan, MD, MS, FAHA Dilip K. Pandey, MBBS, MS, PhD, FAHA Ravi R. Thiagarajan, MD, MPH Mathew J. Reeves, PhD Matthew Ritchey, PT, DPT, OCS, MPH Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, FAHA Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, FAHA Amytis Towfighi, MD Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH Melanie B. Turner, MPH Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA Jenifer H. Voeks, PhD Joshua Z. Willey, MD, MS John T. Wilkins, MD Jason HY. Wu, MSc, PhD, FAHA Heather M. Alger, PhD Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Paul Muntner, PhD, MHSc On behalf of the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2017 Update

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2016 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Abstract: Author(s): Writing Group Members; Mozaffarian, Dariush; Benjamin, Emelia J; Go, Alan S; Arnett, Donna K; Blaha, Michael J; Cushman, Mary; Das, Sandeep R; de Ferranti, Sarah; Despres, Jean-Pierre; Fullerton, Heather J; Howard, Virginia J; Huffman, Mark D; Isasi, Carmen R; Jimenez, Monik C; Judd, Suzanne E; Kissela, Brett M; Lichtman, Judith H; Lisabeth, Lynda D; Liu, Simin; Mackey, Rachel H; Magid, David J; McGuire, Darren K; Mohler, Emile R; Moy, Claudia S; Muntner, Paul; Mussolino, Michael E; Nasir, Khurram; Neumar, Robert W; Nichol, Graham; Palaniappan, Latha; Pandey, Dilip K; Reeves, Mathew J; Rodriguez, Carlos J; Rosamond, Wayne; Sorlie, Paul D; Stein, Joel; Towfighi, Amytis; Turan, Tanya N; Virani, Salim S; Woo, Daniel; Yeh, Robert W; Turner, Melanie B; American Heart Association Statistics Committee; Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Abstract: March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee