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

Kenneth Ottenbacher, PhD, OTR
Faculty of Health Sciences 435 Stockton Kimball Tower Buffalo, NY 14214

Arch Neurol. 1994;51(2):120-121.

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

In reply

Reding and McDowell have argued that our recent article¹ using meta-analysis to study the impact of stroke rehabilitation addresses two separate issues. They are: (1) Do patients randomized to focused stroke rehabilitation units do better than those given physical, occupational, and speech therapy on a general medical ward? (2) Is one type of rehabilitation technique better than another in optimizing functional recovery within a stroke rehabilitation unit? Actually, our study deals with several questions related to the effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation. These questions are reviewed in our discussion under the following headings: "Independent Variable," "Dependent Variable," "Design Characteristics," and "Design Interactions." Reding and McDowell contend that by pooling randomized controlled trials examining focused stroke rehabilitation programs with other trials that compare individualized rehabilitation approaches or comparisons with standard medical intervention we "obscure the primary question: Are focused stroke rehabilitation units advantageous?"

Our purpose was to "examine the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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