Critical appraisal and review of the Rankin Scale and its derivatives

被引:70
作者
New, PW
Buchbinder, R
机构
[1] So Hlth, Kingston Ctr, Rehabil & Aged Serv Program, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Cabrini Hosp, Monash Dept Clin Epidemiol, Malvern, Vic, Australia
[3] Monash Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Malvern, Vic, Australia
关键词
stroke; clinimetric; outcome assessment;
D O I
10.1159/000089536
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background and Purpose: Efforts to reduce stroke burden require accurate assessment of outcomes in order to compare treatments. The Rankin Scale and its derivatives, the Modified Rankin Scale and the Oxford Handicap Scale, taken together, are among the most common outcome measures that have been used in stroke research. The aim of this study was to perform a critical appraisal of the clinimetric properties of these scales. It was also planned to review the use of these scales in a selection of articles to illustrate concerns raised by the critical appraisal. Summary of Review: A literature search was performed using electronic databases to locate relevant articles about the reviewed scales. The scales were appraised using a structured format regarding the following properties: purpose, development, presentation, language, method of administration, content validity, face validity, feasibility, construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and generalizability. There are concerns in each of the appraised areas regarding the clinimetric properties of these scales. Conclusion: Further work is needed to improve the clinimetric properties of the reviewed scales to ensure that they are more useful tools in determining the outcome of stroke. Alternatively, a newer global outcome scale with improved clinimetric properties may be a better option for future stroke research. Copyright (C) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.
引用
收藏
页码:4 / 15
页数:12
相关论文
共 65 条
  • [31] Dichotomized efficacy end points and global end-point analysis applied to the ECASS intention-to-treat data set - Post hoc analysis of ECASS I
    Hacke, W
    Bluhmki, E
    Steiner, T
    Tatlisumak, T
    Mahagne, MH
    Sacchetti, ML
    Meier, D
    [J]. STROKE, 1998, 29 (10) : 2073 - 2075
  • [32] Hommel M, 1996, NEW ENGL J MED, V335, P145
  • [33] Jadad AR., 1998, RANDOMISED CONTROLLE
  • [34] JAILLARDSERRADJ A, 1995, CEREBROVASC DIS, V5, P269
  • [35] JENNETT B, 1975, LANCET, V1, P480
  • [36] DISABILITY AFTER SEVERE HEAD-INJURY - OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THE GLASGOW OUTCOME SCALE
    JENNETT, B
    SNOEK, J
    BOND, MR
    BROOKS, N
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 1981, 44 (04) : 285 - 293
  • [37] Dichotomizing stroke outcomes based on self-reported dependency
    Kay, R
    Wong, KS
    Perez, G
    Woo, J
    [J]. NEUROLOGY, 1997, 49 (06) : 1694 - 1696
  • [38] A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING HEALTH INDEXES
    KIRSHNER, B
    GUYATT, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHRONIC DISEASES, 1985, 38 (01): : 27 - 36
  • [39] Disagreement in patient and career assessment of functional abilities after stroke
    Knapp, P
    Hewison, J
    [J]. STROKE, 1999, 30 (05) : 934 - 938
  • [40] KORNERBITENSKY N, 1994, ARCH PHYS MED REHAB, V75, P1287