Skip to main content
. 2017 Jul 13;2017(7):CD000443. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000443.pub4

Copenhagen 2009.

Methods RCT
External list generated and managed by external person, blocks of 10
Opaque sealed envelopes
Participants 100 patients recruited from stroke unit of 1 university hospital, 1 to 3 days post stroke
Inclusion criteria: mRS 0 to 3 pre‐stroke, living at home
Median age 81 (range 33 to 98) years, median BI 69 (0 to 100), median SSS 45 (11 to 58)
Interventions Hospital out‐reach multidisciplinary team, based within stroke unit. Co‐ordinated and delivered low intensity (1 to 3 times per week) home based rehabilitation for a period of 1 month. All staff were skilled in stroke care and co‐ordinated via weekly multidisciplinary meetings
Control: conventional discharge planning from combined acute/rehabilitation stroke unit and conventional after discharge care
Outcomes At 90 days: dependency (mRS, BI, MAS, COPM), cognition (CT‐50), quality of life (EQ‐5D)
At 150 days: mortality, use of municipal services, hospital contacts, cost, carer satisfaction
Notes The published report excluded some mild stroke patients that were included in the original unpublished report
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk "In blocks of each ten patients" "Sealed envelopes containing a card with the word 'intervention' or 'control'" made by a research centre in the Capital Region of Denmark (Research Centre for Prevention and Health, Department of Planning Health and Quality)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk "Consecutively numbered and sealed envelopes containing a card with the word 'intervention' or 'control'"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Not explicitly stated but probably not possible to blind participants and personnel
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes High risk "Blinded investigators were not used in the trial and all tests were performed by members of the multidisciplinary team".
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk 7 patients in the intervention group and 3 control patients 'dropped out' prior to discharge and were not included in the final analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All pre‐specified outcomes appear to have been reported (unpublished)