Abstract Background and aims Stroke remains a major cause of global mortality and long-term disability. Patient-centered care (PCC), which prioritizes individualized rehabilitation, shared decision-making, and active patient engagement, has gained attention as a potential strategy to enhance recovery. However, its comparative safety and efficacy relative to usual care are not well established. This meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of PCC versus usual care in post-stroke patients. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library identified randomized controlled trials comparing PCC and usual care. Fourteen RCTs involving 13,124 patients met inclusion criteria. A random-effects model generated pooled mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. Results PCC significantly improved SIS scores (MD: 4.99, 95% CI: 0.05–9.92; P = 0.05; I2 = 77%) and reduced risks of recurrent stroke (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44–0.98; P = 0.04; I2 = 33%), hospital readmission (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39–0.83; P = 0.003; I2 = 36%), and mortality (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33–0.98; P = 0.04; I2 = 67%). No significant differences were observed for depression, anxiety, functional independence, or metabolic task performance. Adverse effects were lower with PCC (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52–0.84; P = 0.0005; I2 = 8%). Conclusions PCC offers meaningful improvements in functional outcomes and key clinical endpoints, supporting its incorporation into routine post-stroke care. Conflict of interest all authors have has nothing to disclose. Figure 1 - belongs to Methods Figure 2 - belongs to Results Figure 3 - belongs to Conclusions
Serag et al. (Fri,) studied this question.