Issues in Selecting Outcome Measures to Assess Functional Recovery After Stroke

被引:117
作者
Barak S. [1 ]
Duncan P.W. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Department of Physical Therapy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, Gainesville, FL
[2] Department of Aging and Geriatric Research, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
[3] Rehabilitation Outcomes Research Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Gainesville, FL
来源
NeuroRX | 2006年 / 3卷 / 4期
关键词
cerebrovascular accident; Disability evaluation; measurement; outcome assessment; recovery; stroke;
D O I
10.1016/j.nurx.2006.07.009
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Most patients who survive a stroke experience some degree of physical recovery. Selecting the appropriate outcome measure to assess physical recovery is a difficult task, given the heterogeneity of stroke etiology, symptoms, severity, and even recovery itself. Despite these complexities, a number of strategies can facilitate the selection of functional outcome measures in stroke clinical trial research and practice. Clinical relevance in stroke outcome measures can be optimized by incorporating a framework of health and disability, such as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). The ICF provides the conceptual basis for measurement and policy formulations for disability and health assessment. All outcome measures selected should also have sound psychometric properties. The essential psychometric properties are reliability, validity, responsiveness, sensibility, and established minimal clinically important difference. It is also important to establish the purpose of the measurement (discriminative, predictive, or evaluative) and to determine whether the purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention. In addition, when selecting outcome measures and time of assessment, the natural history of stroke and stroke severity must be regarded. Finally, methods for acquiring data must also be considered. We present a comprehensive overview of the issues in selecting stroke outcome measures and characterize existing measures relative to these issues. © 2006 The American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:505 / 524
页数:19
相关论文
共 175 条
[51]  
Wallace D., Duncan P.W., Lai S.M., Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: the impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness, J Clin Epidemiol, 55, pp. 922-928, (2002)
[52]  
Hsueh I.P., Lin J.H., Jeng J.S., Hsieh C.L., Comparison of the psychometric characteristics of the Functional Independence Measure, 5 item Barthel Index, and 10 item Barthel Index in patients with stroke, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 73, pp. 188-190, (2002)
[53]  
Lorentz W.J., Scanlan J.M., Borson S., Brief screening tests for dementia, Can J Psychiatry, 47, pp. 723-733, (2002)
[54]  
Guyatt G.H., Cook D.J., Health status, quality of life, and the individual, JAMA, 272, pp. 630-631, (1994)
[55]  
Jaeschke R., Singer J., Guyatt G.H., Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference, Control Clin Trials, 10, pp. 407-415, (1989)
[56]  
Beaton D.E., Boers M., Wells G.A., Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research, Curr Opin Rheumatol, 14, pp. 109-114, (2002)
[57]  
Portney L.G., Watkins M.P., Validity of measurements, Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2nd ed., pp. 79-110, (2000)
[58]  
Berg K.O., Wood-Dauphinee S.L., Williams J.I., Maki B., Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument, Can J Public Health, 83, (1992)
[59]  
Murray G.D., Barer D., Choi S., Et al., Design and analysis of phase III trials with ordered outcome scales: the concept of the sliding dichotomy, J Neurotrauma, 22, pp. 511-517, (2005)
[60]  
Guyatt G.H., Jaeschke R., Feeny D.H., Patrick D.L., Measurements in clinical trials: choosing the right approach, Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, pp. 41-49, (1996)