| Literature DB >> 20700421 |
Benjamin Y Tseng1, Byron J Gajewski, Patricia M Kluding.
Abstract
Background and Purpose. Post-Stroke Fatigue (PSF) is a prevalent yet commonly neglected issue that impacts daily functions and quality of life in people post-stroke. To date no studies have attempted to validate a clinically-feasible and reliable instrument to quantify PSF. We developed the Visual Analog Fatigue Scale (VAFS) to eliminate difficulties and poor data validity in testing people post-stroke. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, responsiveness, and validity of the VAFS. Methods. Twenty-one people post-stroke (12 males, age = 59.5 +/- 10.3 years; time post-stroke = 4.1 +/- 3.5 years) participated. Subjects underwent a standardized fatigue-inducing exercise; fatigue level was assessed at rest, immediately after exercise, and after recovery. The same protocol was repeated after 14 days. Results. ICC values for the VAFS at rest was 0.851 (CI = 95%, 0.673 approximately 0.936, P < .001), immediately after exercise was 0.846 (CI = 95%, 0.663 approximately 0.934, P < .001), and 15 minutes after exercise was 0.888 (CI = 95%, 0.749 approximately 0.953, P < .001). The ES values for at-rest to post-exercise and for post-exercise to post-recovery were 14.512 and 0.685, respectively. Using paired t-test, significant difference was found between VAFS scores at-rest and post-exercise (P < .001), and between post-exercise and post-recovery (P < .001). Conclusion. Our data suggests good reliability, responsiveness, and validity of the VAFS to assess exertion fatigue in people post-stroke.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20700421 PMCID: PMC2911654 DOI: 10.4061/2010/412964
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stroke Res Treat
Figure 1Illustration of (a) traditional visual analog scale used to measure pain, (b) VAFS version 1, and (c) VAFS version 2. VAFS: Visual Analog Fatigue Scale.
Participant characteristics (n = 21). Values are means ± SD.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Men/women | 12/9 |
| Stroke lesion side: right/left/brain stem | 15/4/2 |
| Stroke subtype: ischemic/hemorrhagic | 18/3 |
| Age (years) | 59.5 ± 10.3 |
| Time post stroke (years) | 4.1 ± 3.5 |
| FMTM | 70.8 ± 28.8 |
| GDS | 10.2 ± 7.3 |
FMTM: Fugl-Meyer Total-Motor score.
GDS: Geriatric Depression Scale.
The intraclass correlation coefficient of measures on 2 separate visits (n = 21).
| Visit 1 | Visit 2 | ICC | |
|---|---|---|---|
| VAFSat rest | 7.2 ± 4.3 | 8.3 ± 4.5 | 0.851 |
| VAFSpost exercise | 69.4 ± 30.5 | 65.8 ± 31.9 | 0.846 |
| VAFSpost recovery | 48.5 ± 25.4 | 47.5 ± 26.9 | 0.888 |
| EF | 62.4 ± 29.3 | 57.5 ± 30.9 | 0.829 |
| RR (%) | 37.0 ± 17.3 | 37.7 ± 15.9 | 0.893 |
VAFS: Visual Analog Fatigue Scale.
EF: Exertion Fatigue (EF =VAFSpost exercise−VAFSat rest).
RR: Recovery Rate (RR = VAFSpost exercise− VAFSpost recovery)/(VAFSpost exercise−VAFSat rest) × 100.
ICC: Intraclass correlation coefficient, model (3,1).
Figure 2VAFS measures at rest, post exercise, and post recovery from Visits 1 and 2. VAFS: Visual Analog Fatigue Scale.
Figure 3Bland-Altman plot of the VAFS scores at rest from Visits 1 and 2 indicates no shift and low variability. VAFS: Visual Analog Fatigue Scale.
Figure 4Scatterplot illustrating the relationship between EF and HR increase. EF: Exertion Fatigue, HR: Heart rate, and BPM: beats per minute.
Figure 5Scatterplot illustrating the relationship between EF and SBP increase. EF: Exertion Fatigue, SBP: Systolic Blood Pressure, and mmHg: Millimeter of mercury.