Peter Wayne New1, Rachelle Buchbinder. 1. Rehabilitation and Aged Services Program, Kingston Center, Southern Health, Melbourne, Australia. Peter.New@southernhealth.org.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Efforts to reduce stroke burden require accurate assessment of outcomes in order to compare treatments. The Rankin Scale and its derivatives, the Modified Rankin Scale and the Oxford Handicap Scale, taken together, are among the most common outcome measures that have been used in stroke research. The aim of this study was to perform a critical appraisal of the clinimetric properties of these scales. It was also planned to review the use of these scales in a selection of articles to illustrate concerns raised by the critical appraisal. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: A literature search was performed using electronic databases to locate relevant articles about the reviewed scales. The scales were appraised using a structured format regarding the following properties: purpose, development, presentation, language, method of administration, content validity, face validity, feasibility, construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and generalizability. There are concerns in each of the appraised areas regarding the clinimetric properties of these scales. CONCLUSION: Further work is needed to improve the clinimetric properties of the reviewed scales to ensure that they are more useful tools in determining the outcome of stroke. Alternatively, a newer global outcome scale with improved clinimetric properties may be a better option for future stroke research.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Efforts to reduce stroke burden require accurate assessment of outcomes in order to compare treatments. The Rankin Scale and its derivatives, the Modified Rankin Scale and the Oxford Handicap Scale, taken together, are among the most common outcome measures that have been used in stroke research. The aim of this study was to perform a critical appraisal of the clinimetric properties of these scales. It was also planned to review the use of these scales in a selection of articles to illustrate concerns raised by the critical appraisal. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: A literature search was performed using electronic databases to locate relevant articles about the reviewed scales. The scales were appraised using a structured format regarding the following properties: purpose, development, presentation, language, method of administration, content validity, face validity, feasibility, construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and generalizability. There are concerns in each of the appraised areas regarding the clinimetric properties of these scales. CONCLUSION: Further work is needed to improve the clinimetric properties of the reviewed scales to ensure that they are more useful tools in determining the outcome of stroke. Alternatively, a newer global outcome scale with improved clinimetric properties may be a better option for future stroke research.
Authors: Robert L Askew; Carmen E Capo-Lugo; Rajbeer Sangha; Andrew Naidech; Shyam Prabhakaran Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Pamela M Rist; M Maria Glymour; E John Orav; Eunjung Kim; Carlos S Kase; Julie E Buring; Tobias Kurth Journal: Eur J Intern Med Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 4.487
Authors: Hermann Neugebauer; Matthias Schnabl; Dorothée Lulé; Peter U Heuschmann; Eric Jüttler Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Hermann Neugebauer; Claire J Creutzfeldt; J Claude Hemphill; Peter U Heuschmann; Eric Jüttler Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Brian P Walcott; Hooman Kamel; Brandyn Castro; W Taylor Kimberly; Kevin N Sheth Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2013-10-06 Impact factor: 2.136