Estimating the minimal clinically important difference of the stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement measure

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 723-727

  Hsieh, Yu Wei ^a   Wang, Chun Hou ^b   Sheu, Ching Fan ^c   Hsueh, I Ping ^a,d   Hsieh, Ching Lin ^a,d  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b CHUNG SHAN MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Minimal clinically important difference; Mobility; Motor function; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARM MOVEMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEG MOVEMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; SCORING SYSTEM; STROKE; STROKE REHABILITATION ASSESSMENT OF MOVEMENT;

ADULT; AGED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LOWER EXTREMITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; STROKE; TAIWAN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UPPER EXTREMITY;

EID: 54249161376     PISSN: 15459683     EISSN: 15526844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1545968308316385     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Shaughnessy M., Michael KM, Sorkin JD, et al. Steps after stroke: capturing ambulatory recovery. Stroke. 2005 ; 36: 1305-1307.
2. Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 ; 16: 232-240.
3. Hendricks HT, van Limbeek J., Geurts AC, et al. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 ; 83: 1629-1637.
4. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007 ; 7: 541-546.
5. McLeod LD, Fehnel SE, Brandman J., et al. Evaluating minimal clinically important differences for the acne-specific quality of life questionnaire. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003 ; 21: 1069-1079.
6. Beaton DE, Boers M., Wells GA Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002 ; 14: 109-114.
7. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 ; 56: 395-407.
8. Khanna D., Furst DE, Hays RD, et al. Minimally important difference in diffuse systemic sclerosis: results from the D-penicillamine study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006 ; 65: 1325-1329.
9. Hagg O., Fritzell P., Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003 ; 12: 12-20 ; discussion 21.
10. Ahmed S., Mayo NE, Higgins J., et al. The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM): a comparison with other measures used to evaluate effects of stroke and rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2003 ; 83: 617-630.
11. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S., Cote R., et al. There's no place like home: an evaluation of early supported discharge for stroke. Stroke. 2000 ; 31: 1016-1023.
12. Sullivan JE, Hedman LD A home program of sensory and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with upper-limb task practice in a patient 5 years after a stroke. Phys Ther. 2004 ; 84: 1045-1054.
13. Daley K., Mayo N., Wood-Dauphinee S. Reliability of scores on the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM) measure. Phys Ther. 1999 ; 79: 8-19.
14. Wang CH, Hsieh CL, Dai MH, et al. Inter-rater reliability and validity of the stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement (STREAM) instrument. J Rehabil Med. 2002 ; 34: 20-24.
15. Xu G., Meyer JS, Huang Y., et al. Adapting mini-mental state examination for dementia screening among illiterate or minimally educated elderly Chinese. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003 ; 18: 609-616.
16. Jaeschke R., Singer J., Guyatt GH Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989 ; 10: 407-415.
17. Daley K., Mayo N., Danys I., et al. The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM): refining and validating the content. Physiother Can. 1997: 269-278.
18. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A., et al. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 ; 47: 81-87.
19. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR " Mini-mental state": a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 ; 12: 189-198.
20. Grace J., Nadler JD, White DA, et al. Folstein vs modified Mini-Mental State Examination in geriatric stroke: stability, validity, and screening utility. Arch Neurol. 1995 ; 52: 477-484.
21. Zwecker M., Levenkrohn S., Fleisig Y., et al. Mini-Mental State Examination, cognitive FIM instrument, and the Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment: relation to functional outcome of stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 ; 83: 342-345.
22. Lin JH, Hsieh CL, Lo SK, et al. Preliminary study of the effect of low-intensity home-based physical therapy in chronic stroke patients. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2004 ; 20: 18-23.
23. Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S., Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 ; 50: 79-93.
24. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, et al. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 ; 53: 459-468.
25. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990 ; 28: 632-642.