A comparison of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure as outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: patterns of disability scale usage in clinical trials

被引:83
作者
Sangha, H
Lipson, D
Foley, N
Salter, K
Bhogal, S
Pohani, G
Teasell, RW
机构
[1] Parkwood Hosp, St Josephs Hlth Care London, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, London, ON N6C 5J1, Canada
[2] Univ Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
关键词
barthel index; functional independence measure; outcomes; stroke rehabilitation;
D O I
10.1097/00004356-200506000-00006
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
In order to compare the frequency and patterns of use of the Barthel Index (BI) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) in stroke rehabilitation trials, all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stroke rehabilitation published between 1968 and 2002 were identified and reviewed to determine the frequency with which the BI and FIM measures were used relative to other measures of disability. The date and location of each study citing either the FIM or the BI were also recorded. Studies were assigned ratings of methodological quality based on the physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) scoring system. Comparisons of the age, frequency and continents of origin and methodological quality of the studies were explored. Results indicate that the BI and FIM were the most common measures of disability used in RCTs examining stroke rehabilitation. However, the BI was used more often than the FIM (n=86, P < 0.001) and was cited in trials of superior quality (P=0.005). Studies from North America were more likely to use the FIM compared with European studies (n=24, P < 0.001). Publications citing the BI were significantly more recent when originating in Europe as opposed to North America (P=0.023). These results provide insight into current patterns of scale use in stroke rehabilitation research.
引用
收藏
页码:135 / 139
页数:5
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   THE VALUE OF FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASURE SCORES [J].
BUNCH, WH ;
DVONCH, VM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, 1994, 73 (01) :40-43
[2]   The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures [J].
Cohen, ME ;
Marino, RJ .
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2000, 81 (12) :S21-S29
[3]   A VALIDATION OF THE FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEASUREMENT AND ITS PERFORMANCE AMONG REHABILITATION INPATIENTS [J].
DODDS, TA ;
MARTIN, DP ;
STOLOV, WC ;
DEYO, RA .
ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 1993, 74 (05) :531-536
[4]   Parallel reliability of the functional independence measure and the Barthel ADL index [J].
Gosman-Hedström, G ;
Svensson, E .
DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, 2000, 22 (16) :702-715
[5]  
Granger C.V., 1986, TOP GERIATR REHABIL, V1, P59, DOI DOI 10.1097/00013614-198604000-00007
[6]  
Hamilton B., 1987, Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement, V1st
[7]  
Hinkle J.L.., 2000, TOP STROKE REHABIL, V7, P47, DOI [10.1310/3LB6-CGVN-EAAU-0TEQ, DOI 10.1310/3LB6-CGVN-EAAU-0TEQ]
[8]   Evidence-based measurement - Which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation? [J].
Hobart, JC ;
Lamping, DL ;
Freeman, JA ;
Langdon, DW ;
McLellan, DL ;
Greenwood, RJ ;
Thompson, AJ .
NEUROLOGY, 2001, 57 (04) :639-644
[9]  
Hsueh IP, 2001, J FORMOS MED ASSOC, V100, P526
[10]   Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the functional independence measure, 5 item Barthel index, and 10 item Barthel index in patients with stroke [J].
Hsueh, IP ;
Lin, JH ;
Jeng, JS ;
Hsieh, CL .
JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 2002, 73 (02) :188-190