BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is the most common outcome measure in large randomized controlled trials in stroke. We tested 2 postal mRS questionnaires and a telephone questionnaire to determine completion rates and intermodality agreement. METHODS: We sent postal questionnaires containing 2 versions of the mRS to surviving stroke patients. One version, tick box, involved the patient/proxy ticking 1 of the 5 descriptions equating to mRS scores; the other, the simplified modified Rankin questionnaire (smRSq), included 5 questions with yes/no responses from which the mRS is derived. We performed a semistructured telephone interview to consenting respondents, blinded to postal responses, to assign an mRS. We compared the mRS obtained by these different methods. RESULTS: We sent questionnaires to 343 of 356 surviving patients (96%) and received 225 responses (66%). The mRS could not be derived in 27 respondents (12%) and 10 respondents (4%) on the tick box and smRSq, respectively (difference in proportion, 8% [95% CI, 3-13]. One hundred three of 190 respondents (54%) to the postal questionnaire agreed on the tick box versus smRSq version (κ=0.44 [0.38, 0.50]). Agreements between the tick box versus telephone and smRSq versus telephone were 57% (ie, 87/152, κ=0.47 [0.40, 0.55], and 64% (ie, 104/161, κ=0.55 [0.47, 0.62], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In large studies where face-to-face assessment of mRS is impractical, a postal smRSq with telephone follow-up to nonresponders will achieve higher levels of follow-up than will the tick box version and also good levels of intermodality agreement with least risk of bias.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is the most common outcome measure in large randomized controlled trials in stroke. We tested 2 postal mRS questionnaires and a telephone questionnaire to determine completion rates and intermodality agreement. METHODS: We sent postal questionnaires containing 2 versions of the mRS to surviving strokepatients. One version, tick box, involved the patient/proxy ticking 1 of the 5 descriptions equating to mRS scores; the other, the simplified modified Rankin questionnaire (smRSq), included 5 questions with yes/no responses from which the mRS is derived. We performed a semistructured telephone interview to consenting respondents, blinded to postal responses, to assign an mRS. We compared the mRS obtained by these different methods. RESULTS: We sent questionnaires to 343 of 356 surviving patients (96%) and received 225 responses (66%). The mRS could not be derived in 27 respondents (12%) and 10 respondents (4%) on the tick box and smRSq, respectively (difference in proportion, 8% [95% CI, 3-13]. One hundred three of 190 respondents (54%) to the postal questionnaire agreed on the tick box versus smRSq version (κ=0.44 [0.38, 0.50]). Agreements between the tick box versus telephone and smRSq versus telephone were 57% (ie, 87/152, κ=0.47 [0.40, 0.55], and 64% (ie, 104/161, κ=0.55 [0.47, 0.62], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In large studies where face-to-face assessment of mRS is impractical, a postal smRSq with telephone follow-up to nonresponders will achieve higher levels of follow-up than will the tick box version and also good levels of intermodality agreement with least risk of bias.
Authors: Andrew M Naidech; Jennifer L Beaumont; Michael Berman; Brandon Francis; Eric Liotta; Matthew B Maas; Shyam Prabhakaran; Jane Holl; David Cella Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Andrew M Naidech; Jennifer L Beaumont; Michael Berman; Eric Liotta; Matthew B Maas; Shyam Prabhakaran; Konrad Kording; Jane Holl; David Cella Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Stephen Dj Makin; Fergus N Doubal; Kirsten Shuler; Francesca M Chappell; Julie Staals; Martin S Dennis; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2018-01-08
Authors: James P Sheppard; Jenni Burt; Mark Lown; Eleanor Temple; Rebecca Lowe; Rosalyn Fraser; Julie Allen; Gary A Ford; Carl Heneghan; F D Richard Hobbs; Sue Jowett; Shahela Kodabuckus; Paul Little; Jonathan Mant; Jill Mollison; Rupert A Payne; Marney Williams; Ly-Mee Yu; Richard J McManus Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David J Seiffge; Christopher Traenka; Alexandros A Polymeris; Sebastian Thilemann; Benjamin Wagner; Lisa Hert; Mandy D Müller; Henrik Gensicke; Nils Peters; Christian H Nickel; Christoph Stippich; Raoul Sutter; Stephan Marsch; Urs Fisch; Raphael Guzman; Gian Marco De Marchis; Philippe A Lyrer; Leo H Bonati; Dimitrios A Tsakiris; Stefan T Engelter Journal: J Stroke Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 6.967