Toby B Cumming1, Gillian Mead2. 1. Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: toby.cumming@florey.edu.au. 2. Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Post-stroke fatigue is common and has debilitating effects on independence and quality of life. The Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) is a valid screening tool for fatigue after stroke, but there is no established cut-off. We sought to identify the optimal cut-off for classifying post-stroke fatigue on the FAS. METHODS: In retrospective analysis of two independent datasets (the '2015' and '2007' studies), we evaluated the predictive validity of FAS score against a case definition of fatigue (the criterion standard). Area under the curve (AUC) and sensitivity and specificity at the optimal cut-off were established in the larger 2015 dataset (n=126), and then independently validated in the 2007 dataset (n=52). RESULTS: In the 2015 dataset, AUC was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86), with the optimal ≥24 cut-off giving a sensitivity of 0.82 and specificity of 0.66. The 2007 dataset had an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.94), and applying the ≥24 cut-off gave a sensitivity of 0.84 and specificity of 0.67. Post-hoc analysis of the 2015 dataset revealed that using only the 3 most predictive FAS items together ('FAS-3') also yielded good validity: AUC 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.89), with sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.75 at the optimal ≥8 cut-off. CONCLUSION: We propose ≥24 as a cut-off for classifying post-stroke fatigue on the FAS. While further validation work is needed, this is a positive step towards a coherent approach to reporting fatigue prevalence using the FAS.
OBJECTIVE: Post-stroke fatigue is common and has debilitating effects on independence and quality of life. The Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) is a valid screening tool for fatigue after stroke, but there is no established cut-off. We sought to identify the optimal cut-off for classifying post-stroke fatigue on the FAS. METHODS: In retrospective analysis of two independent datasets (the '2015' and '2007' studies), we evaluated the predictive validity of FAS score against a case definition of fatigue (the criterion standard). Area under the curve (AUC) and sensitivity and specificity at the optimal cut-off were established in the larger 2015 dataset (n=126), and then independently validated in the 2007 dataset (n=52). RESULTS: In the 2015 dataset, AUC was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86), with the optimal ≥24 cut-off giving a sensitivity of 0.82 and specificity of 0.66. The 2007 dataset had an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.94), and applying the ≥24 cut-off gave a sensitivity of 0.84 and specificity of 0.67. Post-hoc analysis of the 2015 dataset revealed that using only the 3 most predictive FAS items together ('FAS-3') also yielded good validity: AUC 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.89), with sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.75 at the optimal ≥8 cut-off. CONCLUSION: We propose ≥24 as a cut-off for classifying post-stroke fatigue on the FAS. While further validation work is needed, this is a positive step towards a coherent approach to reporting fatigue prevalence using the FAS.
Authors: Inge Kirchberger; Florian Wallner; Jakob Linseisen; Philipp Zickler; Michael Ertl; Markus Naumann; Christine Meisinger Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Marilyn MacKay-Lyons; Gordon Gubitz; Stephen Phillips; Nicholas Giacomantonio; Wanda Firth; Kara Thompson; Chris Theriault; Howard Wightman; Sharon Slipp; David Marsters; Gail Eskes; Fiona Peacock; Chris Blanchard; Judy Dewolfe Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Steinunn A Olafsdottir; Ingibjörg Hjaltadottir; Rose Galvin; Thora B Hafsteinsdottir; Helga Jonsdottir; Solveig A Arnadottir Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Ana A Esteban-Burgos; Manuel Fernández-Alcántara; Silvia Escribano; Juana Perpiñá-Galvañ; Concepción Petra Campos-Calderón; María José Cabañero-Martínez Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 4.964