Krista F Huybrechts1, J Jaime Caro. 1. Caro Research Institute, 336 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742, USA. khuybrechts@caroresearch.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Providing a quantitative prognosis after a stroke is important to clinicians and patients as well as to researchers interested in projecting the results of clinical trials and other studies. Thus, we critically reviewed the evidence supporting the prognostic value of two frequently-used measures, the Barthel Index (BI) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) for long-term outcomes. METHODS: A narrative review of the peer-reviewed medical literature obtained by searching Medline 1966 to January 2004--using the phrase '[stroke] AND [Barthel OR Rankin]'--was conducted to assess the strength of the evidence for these measures and answer three main questions: How good are the BI and mRS at predicting (1) the level of care required, (2) the time-course of recovery, and (3) mortality. Abstracts were screened for the presence of actual data on the prognostic impact of BI and mRS on these endpoints, and selected articles were fully reviewed and abstracted. Additional articles were identified from bibliographies of the retrieved papers. RESULTS: Of 753 abstracts screened, 89 articles were selected for detailed assessment. Early disability and global outcome (< or = 7 days) were shown in 21 studies to be strong predictors of care needs. This relation appears to be mainly biological, not country-specific. Recovery was shown in 18 studies to be strongly related to early BI. In contrast, the 11 studies examining mortality provided insufficient information to directly support the prognostic value of either measure. Key limitations of this review include heterogeneity of available studies (e.g., time-points, outcome, parameterization) and relative lack of information on the mRS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of uniformity in existing studies, the evidence overall is quite strong, supporting the use of BI and mRS as prognostic tools. External non-treatment modifiable factors which also determine long-term outcome (e.g., social support) have to be taken into account.
OBJECTIVE: Providing a quantitative prognosis after a stroke is important to clinicians and patients as well as to researchers interested in projecting the results of clinical trials and other studies. Thus, we critically reviewed the evidence supporting the prognostic value of two frequently-used measures, the Barthel Index (BI) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) for long-term outcomes. METHODS: A narrative review of the peer-reviewed medical literature obtained by searching Medline 1966 to January 2004--using the phrase '[stroke] AND [Barthel OR Rankin]'--was conducted to assess the strength of the evidence for these measures and answer three main questions: How good are the BI and mRS at predicting (1) the level of care required, (2) the time-course of recovery, and (3) mortality. Abstracts were screened for the presence of actual data on the prognostic impact of BI and mRS on these endpoints, and selected articles were fully reviewed and abstracted. Additional articles were identified from bibliographies of the retrieved papers. RESULTS: Of 753 abstracts screened, 89 articles were selected for detailed assessment. Early disability and global outcome (< or = 7 days) were shown in 21 studies to be strong predictors of care needs. This relation appears to be mainly biological, not country-specific. Recovery was shown in 18 studies to be strongly related to early BI. In contrast, the 11 studies examining mortality provided insufficient information to directly support the prognostic value of either measure. Key limitations of this review include heterogeneity of available studies (e.g., time-points, outcome, parameterization) and relative lack of information on the mRS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of uniformity in existing studies, the evidence overall is quite strong, supporting the use of BI and mRS as prognostic tools. External non-treatment modifiable factors which also determine long-term outcome (e.g., social support) have to be taken into account.
Authors: Cheryl Bushnell; Janet Prvu Bettger; Kevin M Cockroft; Steven C Cramer; Maria Orlando Edelen; Daniel Hanley; Irene L Katzan; Soeren Mattke; Dawn M Nilsen; Tepring Piquado; Elizabeth R Skidmore; Kay Wing; Gayane Yenokyan Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2015-10
Authors: Julie K Tilson; Katherine J Sullivan; Steven Y Cen; Dorian K Rose; Cherisha H Koradia; Stanley P Azen; Pamela W Duncan Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2009-12-18
Authors: M Pohl; K Berger; G Ketter; C Krusch; M Pause; W Puschendorf; M Schaupp; J Schleep; M Spranger; D Steube; K Scheidtmann; J Mehrholz Journal: Nervenarzt Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 1.214
Authors: Anirudh Sreekrishnan; Audrey C Leasure; Fu-Dong Shi; David Y Hwang; Joseph L Schindler; Nils H Petersen; Emily J Gilmore; Hooman Kamel; Lauren H Sansing; David M Greer; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: David P Sheppard; Steven Paul Woods; Rodrigo Hasbun; Lucrecia Salazar; Melissa S Nolan; Kristy O Murray Journal: J Neurovirol Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 2.643