This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Bruce H. Dobkin, MD

Arch Neurol. 1989;46(6):701-703.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

N eurologists have a growing interest in supervising the rehabilitation of patients with stroke and other neurologic diseases.¹ While it is a natural extension of what we do as physicians, inpatient rehabilitation is also a growing production: 72 free-standing and 423 critical care hospital units received $210 million in 1987 from Medicare, all of which was excluded from the prospective payment system.² As neurologists enter this stage, we should try to leave in the wings the chorus of rehabilitation specialists who lament that they cannot examine whether or not their programs improve important outcomes over those of the natural history of recovery, ie, when patients do not receive any therapy or when their therapy is nonspecific.

A typical conclusion that was reached in 1 of the 38 studies that has published its outcomes in a refereed journal states³: Despite these methodologic limitations, this study confirmed the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Neurology, UCLA, and the Center for Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Medicine, Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospital, Inglewood, Calif.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication October 1, 1988.

Reprint requests to Department of Neurology, Reed Neurologic Research Center, UCLA, C Floor Mail Room, Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90024 (Dr Dobkin).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?