Myzoon Ali1, Rachael Fulton, Terry Quinn, Marian Brady. 1. From the Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, United Kingdom (M.A., M.B.); and Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Western Infirmary, United Kingdom (M.A., R.F., T.Q.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quality of life (QoL) is important to stroke survivors yet is often recorded as a secondary measure in acute stroke randomized controlled trials. We examined whether commonly used stroke outcome measures captured aspects of QoL. METHODS: We examined primary outcomes by National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), Barthel Index (BI) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and QoL by Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) and European Quality of Life Scale (EQ-5D) from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA). Using Spearman correlations and logistic regression, we described the relationships between QoL mRS, NIHSS, and BI at 3 months, stratified by respondent (patient or proxy). Using χ2 analyses, we examined the mismatch between good primary outcome (mRS ≤1, NIHSS ≤5, or BI ≥95) but poor QoL, and poor primary outcome (mRS ≥3, NIHSS ≥20, or BI ≤60) but good QoL. RESULTS: Patient-assessed QoL had a stronger association with mRS (EQ-5D weighted score n=2987, P<0.0001, r=-0.7, r2=0.53; SIS recovery n=2970, P<0.0001, r=-0.71, r2=0.52). Proxy responses had a stronger association with BI (EQ-5D weighted score n=837, P<0.0001, r=0.78, r2=0.63; SIS recovery n=867, P<0.0001, r=0.68, r2=0.48). mRS explained more of the variation in QoL (EQ-5D weighted score=53%, recovery by SIS v3.0=52%) than NIHSS or BI and resulted in fewer mismatches between good primary outcome and poor QoL (P<0.0001, EQ-5D weighted score=8.5%; SIS recovery=10%; SIS-16=4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The mRS seemed to align closely with stroke survivors' interests, capturing more information on QoL than either NIHSS or BI. This further supports its recommendation as a primary outcome measure in acute stroke randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Quality of life (QoL) is important to stroke survivors yet is often recorded as a secondary measure in acute stroke randomized controlled trials. We examined whether commonly used stroke outcome measures captured aspects of QoL. METHODS: We examined primary outcomes by National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), Barthel Index (BI) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and QoL by Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) and European Quality of Life Scale (EQ-5D) from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA). Using Spearman correlations and logistic regression, we described the relationships between QoL mRS, NIHSS, and BI at 3 months, stratified by respondent (patient or proxy). Using χ2 analyses, we examined the mismatch between good primary outcome (mRS ≤1, NIHSS ≤5, or BI ≥95) but poor QoL, and poor primary outcome (mRS ≥3, NIHSS ≥20, or BI ≤60) but good QoL. RESULTS: Patient-assessed QoL had a stronger association with mRS (EQ-5D weighted score n=2987, P<0.0001, r=-0.7, r2=0.53; SIS recovery n=2970, P<0.0001, r=-0.71, r2=0.52). Proxy responses had a stronger association with BI (EQ-5D weighted score n=837, P<0.0001, r=0.78, r2=0.63; SIS recovery n=867, P<0.0001, r=0.68, r2=0.48). mRS explained more of the variation in QoL (EQ-5D weighted score=53%, recovery by SIS v3.0=52%) than NIHSS or BI and resulted in fewer mismatches between good primary outcome and poor QoL (P<0.0001, EQ-5D weighted score=8.5%; SIS recovery=10%; SIS-16=4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The mRS seemed to align closely with stroke survivors' interests, capturing more information on QoL than either NIHSS or BI. This further supports its recommendation as a primary outcome measure in acute stroke randomized controlled trials.
Authors: Tanzila Shams; Alexander P Auchus; Suzanne Oparil; Clinton B Wright; Jackson Wright; Anthony J Furlan; Cathy A Sila; Barry R Davis; Sara Pressel; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Paula T Einhorn; Alan J Lerner Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Shannon Pike; Anne Cusick; Kylie Wales; Lisa Cameron; Lynne Turner-Stokes; Stephen Ashford; Natasha A Lannin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Toby B Cumming; Leonid Churilov; Janice Collier; Geoffrey Donnan; Fiona Ellery; Helen Dewey; Peter Langhorne; Richard I Lindley; Marj Moodie; Amanda G Thrift; Julie Bernhardt Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Rajbeer S Sangha; Fan Z Caprio; Robert Askew; Carlos Corado; Richard Bernstein; Yvonne Curran; Ilana Ruff; David Cella; Andrew M Naidech; Shyam Prabhakaran Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Brittany R Lapin; Nicolas R Thompson; Andrew Schuster; Ryan Honomichl; Irene L Katzan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Dominik Golicki; Maciej Niewada; Anna Karlińska; Julia Buczek; Adam Kobayashi; M F Janssen; A Simon Pickard Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 4.147