Validation of a Polish version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: Do moderate psychometric properties affect its clinical utility?

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is a validated tool for assessing the severity of stroke. It has been adapted into several languages; however, a Polish version with large-scale psychometric validation, including repeatability and separate assessments of anterior and posterior stroke, has not been developed. We aimed to adapt and validate a Polish version of the NIHSS (PL-NIHSS) while focusing on the psychometric properties and site of stroke.
METHODS: The study included 225 patients with ischemic stroke (102 anterior and 123 posterior circulation stroke). Four NIHSS-certified researchers estimated stroke severity using the most appropriate scales to assess the psychometric properties (including internal consistency, homogeneity, scalability, and discriminatory power of individual items) and ultimately determine the reliability, repeatability, and validity of the PL-NIHSS.
RESULTS: The PL-NIHSS achieved Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.6885, which indicates moderate internal consistency and homogeneity. Slightly more than half of the individual items provided sufficient discriminatory power (r > 0.3). A favorable coefficient of repeatability (0.6267; 95% confidence interval: 0.5737-0.6904), narrow limits of inter-rater agreement, and excellent intraclass correlation coefficients or weighted kappa values (> 0.90), demonstrated high reliability of PL-NIHSS. Highly significant correlations with other tools confirmed the validity and predictive value of the PL-NIHSS. In posterior stroke, the PL-NIHSS achieved the required Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.71070). Additionally, stroke location did not affect other psychometric features or instrument reliability and validity.
CONCLUSIONS: We developed a valid and reliable tool for assessing stroke severity in Polish-speaking participants. Moderate psychometric features were emphasized without limiting its clinical applications.

Introduction

Clinometric scales are used to objectively evaluate the severity of stroke. Undoubtedly, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) has played the most important role in stroke assessment for several years [1]. It is widely accepted due to its simplicity, high reproducibility, and ease of performance [2] and was designed to be used not only by neurologists, but also by other thoroughly trained members of the stroke team [3]. Furthermore, apart from delivering an objective and reliable estimation of stroke severity, numerous studies have stressed the usefulness of the NIHSS in assessing the clinical prognoses, outcomes, and risks for large intracranial vessel occlusions, thus, emphasizing its predictive value [4, 5]. Several researchers from various countries have adapted and validated the NIHSS after demonstrating its high reproducibility and highlighting its clinical utility [6-15]. However, less attention has been focused on the psychometric properties, such as internal consistency or the discriminatory power of individual items, because these factors have only been analyzed in individual reports [16]. Notably, the NIHSS psychometric parameters that determine homogeneity, stability, and individual component discriminatory power are equally important as its overall utility and clinical validity. Obtaining the appropriate values for all these components will determine the overall quality of the diagnostic tool, and it is of utmost importance that these features are independent of the language, country, region, and culture. In light of this observation, the lack of a reliable and in-depth analysis of the NIHSS scale is a shortcoming; therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the NIHSS is essential to better define its structural features as well as overall clinical and practical relevance.

The language barrier and lack of a standardized stroke evaluation tool in Poland have resulted in a clinical need for a reliable and valid instrument that can enable members of the stroke team in evaluating Polish-speaking patients. The aim of the current study was to develop and validate a Polish version of the NIHSS (PL-NIHSS) and to assess its psychometric properties, including internal consistency, homogeneity, and scalability in relation to its overall reliability and clinical accuracy.

Methods

Study design and participants

This prospective, observational, single-center study was conducted between December 2019 and August 2020 in the Stroke Unit of the Department of Neurology at the University Hospital No. 1, Bydgoszcz, Poland. We enrolled 225 patients with ischemic stroke, including 102 patients with anterior and 123 patients with posterior circulation stroke. All participants met the requirements of the updated definition of stroke proposed by the American Heart and Stroke Association [17].

The clinical and functional parameters were assessed within 24 hours of stroke onset using the PL-NIHSS and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). The questionnaires were completed by four investigators, including two stroke physicians, a stroke research nurse, and a physiotherapist, all of whom were NIHSS-certified and had several years of experience in the intensive stroke unit.

Estimation of the inter-rater reliability of the PL-NIHSS was based on evaluations by three randomly selected researchers. The time difference between each assessment did not exceed 2 hours. Repeatability was assessed by analyzing the total PL-NIHSS values assessed by two randomly selected examiners. Three hours later, one researcher randomly selected from the initial three researchers re-assessed the patient (test-retest) using the PL-NIHSS to estimate intra-rater reliability. Subsequently, a randomly selected researcher (from the total group of researchers) evaluated the patient within the first 24 hours of onset of stroke using the GCS to evaluate its construct validity and again at 3 months using the Barthel Index and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) to assess its predictive validity.

The following exclusion criteria were used: (1) significant speech impairment or disturbances of consciousness that prevented a patient from providing informed consent to participate in the study, and (2) patients undergoing specific stroke therapy (intravenous thrombolysis and/or endovascular treatment), which can significantly contribute to discernable fluctuations in the clinical condition. The baseline characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of ischemic stroke subjects (n = 225).

Parameter	Value
Age, median (range)	70 (34–97)
Sex:
Male, N (%)	120 (53.3%)
Female, N(%)	105 (46.7%)
Stroke etiology:
Large vessels disease, N (%)	31 (13.8%)
Small vessel disease, N(%)	79 (35.1%)
Cardioembolism, N(%)	66 (29.3%)
Other, N(%)	49 (21.8%)
NIHSS on admission, median (range)	4 (1–21)
mRS on admission, median (range)	2 (0–5)
Barthel Index od admission, median (range)	85 (5–100)
Risk factors:
Hypertension, N(%)	179 (79.5%)
Diabetes, N(%)	74 (32.9%)
Smoking, N(%)	61 (27.1%)
Ischemic heart disease, N(%)	40 (17.8%)
Hyperlipidemia, N(%)	62 (28.9%)
Obesity, N(%)	54 (24.0%)
BMI, median (range)	27.25 (19.22–39.64)
Alcohol abuse, N(%)	21 (9.3%)
Atrial fibrillation, N(%)	66 (29.3%)

NIHSS- the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; mRS- modified Rankin Scale; BMI- Body Mass Index.

PL-NIHSS

Adaptation of the English version of the NIHSS into Polish was performed in accordance with standards proposed by the International Quality of Life Assessment Project [18]. Two forward translations were used to create an intermediate version that was translated back for comparison with the original version. After analyzing for any contradictions or misinterpretations and obtaining agreement on the consistency and equivalence, the scale was reviewed by Polish-speaking neurologists who estimated how well it was comprehended and rated its overall acceptance. Each item received the required minimum of three points (out of a total of four points) in the content validity rating [19], and after considering minor corrections and suggestions, a preliminary version of the PL-NIHSS was established (S1 Table). Subsequently, the items that assessed speech disorders, inattention, or visual extinction (Fig 1) were modified and adapted to the cultural aspects that would be better recognized and understood by the Polish population. The word complexity, knowledge of phrases, and commonness of idioms were considered while maintaining the content and meaning of the original items. The researchers completed the PL-NIHSS training based on repeated clinical examinations of all the items. The same rules were also adapted for the assessment of individual components included in the original NIHSS [20].

Fig 1

Pictogram showing modified words, phrases, and pictures for better assessment of speech disorders, inattention, and extinction in a Polish-speaking population.

Ethical statement

The study protocol was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun at Collegium Medicum of Ludwik Rydygier in Bydgoszcz (KB number 732/2019). All participants read and understood the study protocol and provided informed written consent to participate in the study.

Statistical evaluation methods

STATISTICA v13.1 (Dell Technologies, Round Rock, TX, USA) was used for the statistical analyses. The following tests were performed: Spearman’s rank correlation (estimation of construct and predictive validity), intraclass correlation coefficient (evaluation of inter-rater and intra-rater agreement), and weighted Cohen’s kappa (intra-rater agreement). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and Bland–Altman analysis were performed to assess the psychometric properties of the PL-NIHSS [21, 22]. A p-level < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.6885 was achieved in all patients with stroke with individual values of 0.6387 and 0.7107 for anterior and posterior stroke, respectively. The characteristics of individual items are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Psychometric properties of individual items of the Polish version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (PL-NIHSS).

Item	Discriminant power of item	Cronbach’s alpha when item is removed	Discriminant power of item	Cronbach’s alpha when item is removed	Discriminant power of item	Cronbach’s alpha when item is removed
	Total	Total	Anterior stroke	Anterior stroke	Posterior stroke	Posterior stroke
	(n = 225)	(n = 225)	(n = 102)	(n = 102)	(n = 123)	(n = 123)
LOC	0.294136	0.683330	0.341463	0.629911	0.296433	0.704423
LOC questions	0.265276	0.680356	0.207420	0.630403	0.192353	0.708738
LOC commands	0.328857	0.679176	0.311585	0.624007	0.194121	0.710916
Best gaze	0.477950	0.653909	0.670050	0.568623	0.317488	0.695873
Visual	0.255057	0.679979	0.664460	0.560121	0.089200	0.751243
Facial palsy	0.663285	0.631123	0.492282	0.615787	0.784627	0.629697
Motor arm of left	0.464550	0.647010	0.279896	0.631653	0.579039	0.655805
Motor arm of right	0.181131	0.693888	-0.039626	0.692250	0.307756	0.696919
Motor leg of left	0.473464	0.644074	0.280524	0.626452	0.607063	0.655786
Motor leg of right	0.220941	0.684049	0.026909	0.668041	0.349657	0.693387
Limb ataxia	-0.374303	0.753991	-0.062611	0.644287	0.012107	0.743963
Sensory	0.397524	0.667285	0.421887	0.601444	-0.063696	0.716220
Best language	0.204271	0.683126	0.093520	0.644686	0.207292	0.708681
Dysarthria	0.597656	0.632055	0.438402	0.602290	0.673961	0.636620
Extinction and inattention	0.570273	0.650585	0.679698	0.571650	0.385419	0.692340

LOC- level of consciousness.

In the group that included both types of stroke (irrespective of location), only 8/15 (53.3%) items achieved a satisfactory and required discriminant level (r>0.3) [23]. Of those, only three, including items for facial palsy, dysarthria, and extinction or inattention, achieved a high correlation with the others (r>0.5). Limb ataxia was the least correlated with the other components. However, when limb ataxia and right arm motor function were excluded, the overall alpha coefficient increased. In the patients with anterior stroke, eight items met the minimum requirements for discriminatory power; of those, only items for visual field, best gaze, and extinction or inattention achieved high values. Notably, the motor function of the right arm and limb ataxia were distinguished from the other items by negative correlation values. Removing four items (motor function of right arm, motor function of right leg, limb ataxia, and best language) improved the overall accuracy of the PL-NIHSS. In the patients with posterior stroke, eight items achieved a satisfactory discriminant level, and half of them, including items for facial palsy, motor function of the left arm, motor function of the left leg, and dysarthria were highly correlated with the others. Only one item (sensory) was negatively correlated with the others; however, removing four items (sensory, limb ataxia, level of consciousness-commands, and visual field) increased the overall alpha coefficient. The median inter-item correlation for the entire stroke group was 0.1834, while the values were 0.1807 and 0.1737 for anterior and posterior stroke, respectively.

The results of the inter-rater and intra-rater agreements are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3

Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the Polish version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (PL-NIHSS).

ITEM	INTER-RATER		INTRA-RATER
	RELIABILITY		RELIABILITY
	ICC	95% CI	ICC	95% CI	weighted κ	95% CI
LOC	1.00	-	1.00	-	1.00	-
LOC questions	0.9854	0.9818–0.9884	0.9780	0.9715–0.9830	0.9708	0.9137–1.000
LOC commands	0.9813	0.9767–0.9851	0.9639	0.9534–0.9721	0.9543	0.8652–1.000
Best gaze	0.9897	0.9872–0.9918	0.9852	0.9808–0.9886	0.9493	0.8812–1.000
Visual	0.9925	0.9906–0.9940	0.9887	0.9853–0.9913	0.9574	0.9009–1.000
Facial palsy	0.9772	0.9717–0.9819	0.9789	0.9727–0.9837	0.9745	0.9465–1.000
Motor arm of left	0.9935	0.9919–0.9948	0.9941	0.9924–0.9955	0.9745	0.9469–1.000
Motor arm of right	0.9917	0.9897–0.9934	0.9782	0.9718–0.9832	0.9528	0.9184–1.000
Motor leg of left	0.9937	0.9922–0.9950	0.9907	0.9879–0.9928	0.9636	0.9293–1.000
Motor leg of right	0.9916	0.9895–0.9933	0.9824	0.9772–0.9865	0.9516	0.9059–1.000
Limb ataxia	0.9875	0.9844–0.9901	0.9816	0.9762–0.9858	0.9688	0.9387–1.000
Sensory	0.9918	0.9898–0.9935	0.9876	0.9839–0.9904	0.9626	0.8915–1.000
Best language	0.9876	0.9846–0.9902	0.9901	0.9871–0.9923	0.9754	0.9285–1.000
Dysarthria	0.9902	0.9877–0.9922	0.9852	0.9808–0.9888	0.9774	0.9519–1.000
Extinction and inattention	0.9854	0.9818–0.9984	0.9778	0.9712–0.9828	0.9357	0.8495–1.000

LOC- level of consciousness; ICC- intraclass correlation coefficient

CI- Confidence Interval; κ- Cohen’s kappa value.

Excellent weighted kappa values (κ > 0.9) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC > 0.9) among all the items indicated high reproducibility of the PL-NIHSS. A favorable coefficient of repeatability (CR = 0.6267; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.5737–0.6904) and narrow limits of agreement (lower: -0.6408, 95%CI = -0.7128 to -0.5689; upper: 0.6142, 95%CI = 0.5422–0.6862) were observed in Bland–Altman analyses (Fig 2), thus, emphasizing the accuracy of PL-NIHSS. A vast majority of related pairs of total scores (n = 211; 93.8%) fell within the limits of agreement and reached an identical total number of points whereas the maximum difference in the total score between the examiners was two points, which was observed only in three cases.

Fig 2

Bland–Altman diagram indicating the repeatability of the Polish version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (PL-NIHSS).

The distribution of plots is based on the mean and difference from the total PL-NIHSS scores obtained by two randomly selected examiners. The limits of agreement occupy the area between the dashed lines. The 95% confidence interval of the regression line is located between the orange bold lines.

We observed a moderate, but significant correlation between the PL-NIHSS score and the initial GCS score (r = -0.4460, p < 0.0001), which indicated satisfactory construct validity (Fig 3A). On the 90th day after the onset of stroke, we also observed a high correlation between the PL-NIHSS, Barthel Index (r = -0.8648, p < 0.0001), and mRS (r = 0.8310, p < 0.0001), which reflected the predictive validity of the device (Fig 3B and 3C). We found no significant differences in the assessment of the reliability (ICC, kappa, CR, limits of agreement) or validity (correlation coefficient) between the patient groups with anterior and posterior stroke as well as in comparison of each subgroup with the overall group.

Fig 3

Construct (A) and predictive (B, C) validity of the Polish version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (PL-NIHSS). Significant correlation with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) on the first day of stroke. Significant correlations with (B) modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and (C) Barthel index on the 90th day of stroke.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study describes the first adaptation and validation of a Polish version of the NIHSS (PL-NIHSS). In this novel report, we highlighted its moderate psychometric properties, assessed its repeatability using Bland–Altman statistics, and analyzed its internal consistency, reliability, and validity based on the stroke location (anterior or posterior).

An ideally constructed stroke scale should be characterized by appropriate psychometric parameters, which demonstrate the correct structure of the tool. Particularly, it should be characterized by scalability (internal consistency and homogeneity) by confirming that each component of the instrument is equally important and measures the same attribute [24]. According to Nunnally’s principle, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient used for this assessment should reach a minimum of 0.7 [21]. Each item on the scale should also significantly correlate with the others (discriminatory power), and its removal should not increase the overall reliability of the scale. We observed a sufficient alpha coefficient only in posterior stroke (slightly exceeding the limit), whereas the required value was not achieved in the groups with anterior and overall stroke. Only slightly more than half of the assessed items had appropriate discriminatory power in the overall stroke group as well as in the anterior and posterior stroke subgroups. Additionally, some items did not correlate with the others at all, thus, contributing to a reduction in the quality of the entire tool. The median correlation coefficients were far below those expected. Our findings emphasized doubtful homogeneity of the adapted version of the NIHSS and are inconsistent with the data reported by Sun et al. [16] who demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.92 and mean inter-item correlation of 0.44. However, they analyzed only 48 patients with stroke, and the small sample size may have significantly affected their overall study reliability [25]. The moderate psychometric properties observed in our study indicated a lack of homogeneity and internal consistency, and therefore, suggests a structural disadvantage of the NIHSS. Accordingly, further research to improve the existing NIHSS version should be supported in order to develop a scalable tool in accordance with the current international guidelines.

Irrespective of the design imperfections, the significant clinical utility of the validated version of the NIHSS should be emphasized; it was particularly manifested in the high reliability and validity observed in our study. Our findings are consistent with those of other studies in this topic; however, we noted higher individual item agreement values than those reported by most other investigators. Only one report by Jurjans et al. [26] found that all the items of a Latvian validated tool achieved excellent ICC (> 0.95) in both inter-rater and intra-rater assessments. The authors of validation reports of other scales found moderate, and sometimes, even poor agreement between the selected items [9-15]. Notably, the sample size in the present and the Latvian study were larger than those in the other studies, thus, emphasizing the significance of the results in this study as well as highlighting the high reproducibility of the PL-NIHSS. Simultaneously, our research supports the wide use and assessment of the NIHSS by qualified, trained, and certified members of the stroke team and not just neurologists. A clear advantage of our study over others is the assessment of repeatability based on the agreement achieved between raters regarding the total score and not just individual items. To our knowledge, this is the first study to emphasize a satisfactory coefficient of repeatability and narrow limits of agreement using Bland–Altman statistics, thus, confirming the stability and reliability of the validated tool. The high construct and predictive validity of the PL-NIHSS was reflected in the significant, high, and moderate correlations with other instruments used in similar situations in other studies.

Another strength of our study is the assessment of the psychometric parameters, reliability, and validity depending on the stroke location. Many reports have demonstrated that the NIHSS is more accurate when used to assess the severity of anterior stroke whereas the clinical condition of posterior stroke is often underestimated [27]. Therefore, unlike previous studies, we attempted to validate the PL-NIHSS with both types of stroke and found that specifying the type of stroke did not negatively affect the parameters, thus, confirming the reproducibility, repeatability, and validity of the tool. This result verified the high accuracy of the validated instrument, irrespective of the area of brain vascularization. Surprisingly, better psychometric properties, such as internal consistency or homogeneity, were noted in the patients with posterior stroke. These differences between the compared groups confirmed that better scalability of the PL-NIHSS did not translate into a more accurate assessment of stroke severity or increase its validity and reliability. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the psychometric properties of the validated instrument did not affect or limit its clinical utility. Nevertheless, we believe that the optimal situation occurs when the commonly used scale is characterized by high psychometric values as well as high reliability and validity.

The current study has some limitations. The study sample size was moderate, although it was larger than in those in other studies. Our study was a single-center study; therefore, verification of our postulates, particularly regarding the psychometric aspects, is required in multi-center studies, preferably with international cooperation. Due to the requirement for obtaining informed written consent, some patients with stroke were procedurally excluded, and therefore, the data did not cover the entire stroke profile (especially of patients with severe strokes).

Conclusions

We developed a valid and reliable Polish version of the NIHSS suitable for use in everyday practice by trained and certified staff of the Polish-speaking stroke unit. The moderate psychometric properties emphasized in the PL-NIHSS did not affect its clinical usefulness. However, considering the international requirements for commonly used diagnostic tools, further research should be pursued to improve the design and structural quality of the current NIHSS.

Polish version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

10 Feb 2021

PONE-D-21-00869

Validation of a Polish version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale- can moderate psychometric properties affect its clinical utility?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wiśniewski,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript seems interesting, but I encourage the authors to seek for English Editing Services to correct grammatical errors through out the manuscript. Also, the quality of the images is low, and make them difficult to evaluate, please refer to PLOS ONE guidelines for images quality.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 21 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Miguel A. Barboza, MD, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper is interesting, well written and valuable. Results sound not too optimistic not too pessimistic, so PL-NIHSS may be used until new version of the scale will be prepared. It is first time done for Polish version.

I have one important comment.

Authors are at day of admission, beside routine patients’ characteristic and PL- NIHSS are also doing mRS, Barthel and GCS. Writing in page 4, in methods. „which are most widely accepted tools for this purpose” not giving references. GCS may be done, but mRS and Barthel cannot be performed in most cases and is unreliable. At admission we ask patient or family and notice – pre stroke functional status.

I propose to delate these scales from admission characteristic, GCS can stay (not necessary), as well from results and figures. Is Ok to do mRS and Barthel after 90 days, but authors do not mention it in the methods, but we see in results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

19 Feb 2021

Response to Reviewers comments

Academic Editor:

The manuscript seems interesting, but I encourage the authors to seek for English Editing Services to correct grammatical errors through out the manuscript. Also, the quality of the images is low, and make them difficult to evaluate, please refer to PLOS ONE guidelines for images quality.

Response:

Dear Editor,

Thank You for this comment. According to the Editor recommendation our manuscript underwent the extensive language, style, grammar and typographical corrections made by Editage- Professional English Editing Service. We have also improved the quality and resolution of the Figures and checked them with PACE tool to ensure that they meet PLOS requirements. We also provided the changes suggested by the Reviewer, regarding stroke assessment at admission.

Reviewer:

The paper is interesting, well written and valuable. Results sound not too optimistic not too pessimistic, so PL-NIHSS may be used until new version of the scale will be prepared. It is first time done for Polish version. I have one important comment.

Authors are at day of admission, beside routine patients’ characteristic and PL- NIHSS are also doing mRS, Barthel and GCS. Writing in page 4, in methods. „which are most widely accepted tools for this purpose” not giving references. GCS may be done, but mRS and Barthel cannot be performed in most cases and is unreliable. At admission we ask patient or family and notice – pre stroke functional status.

I propose to delate these scales from admission characteristic, GCS can stay (not necessary), as well from results and figures. Is Ok to do mRS and Barthel after 90 days, but authors do not mention it in the methods, but we see in results.

Response:

Thank You for positive opinion regarding our paper.

As suggested by the Reviewer we have removed Barthel Index and modified Rankin Scale from admission characteristics, both in the Methodology Section, as well as in the Results Section and Figures. At this moment there are only PL-NIHSS and Glasgow Coma Scale as stroke assessment at admission. The stroke evaluation after 90 days is described in Methodology Section- Lines- 84-87.

I would like to thank You for the careful review of our study and the constructive comments that have been used to organize all issues and improve the work.

Submitted filename: response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Mar 2021

Validation of a Polish version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: Do moderate psychometric properties affect its clinical utility?

PONE-D-21-00869R1

Dear Dr. Wiśniewski,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Miguel A. Barboza, MD, MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have no furthers comments. Thank you for your response. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

25 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-00869R1

Validation of a Polish version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: Do moderate psychometric properties affect its clinical utility?

Dear Dr. Wiśniewski:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Miguel A. Barboza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE