Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials

International Journal of Stroke

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 200-205

  Quinn, T J ^a   Dawson, J ^a   Walters, M R ^a   Lees, K R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Barthel index; Clinical trials; Modified Rankin score; NIHSS; Outcome assessment; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ANTICOAGULANT AGENT; FIBRINOLYTIC AGENT; HERBACEOUS AGENT; NEUROPROTECTIVE AGENT;

CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONAL DISEASE; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH STROKE SCALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANKIN SCALE; RATING SCALE; REHABILITATION CARE; REVIEW; STENT; STROKE IMPACT SCALE;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; STROKE;

EID: 68149180700     PISSN: 17474930     EISSN: 17474949     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2009.00271.x     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Fisher M, Hanley DF, Howard G, Jauch EC, Warach S STAIR Group. Recommendations from the STAIR V meeting on acute stroke trials, technology and outcomes. Stroke 2007; 38:245-8.
2. Kasner SE. Clinical interpretation and use of stroke scales. Lancet Neurol 2006; 5:603-12.
3. World Health Organisation. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Available at http://www.who.int/classifications/ icf/site/icftemplate.cfm (accessed March 2008).
4. Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Hendry A, Potter J, Bone I, Muir KW. Reliability of the modified Rankin scale across multiple raters: benefits of a structured interview. Stroke 2005; 36:777-81.
5. Quinn TJ, Lees KR, Hardemark HG, Dawson J, Walters MR. Initial experience of a digital training resource for modified Rankin scale assessment in clinical trials. Stroke 2007; 38:2257-61.
6. Walker MF. Stroke rehabilitation: Evidence-based or evidence-tinged? J Rehabil Med 2007; 39:193-7.
7. Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Exploring the reliability of the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke 2009; 40:762-6.
8. Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J. Use of the Barthel index and modified Rankin scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke 1999; 30:1538-41.
9. Kidwell CS, Liebeskind DS, Starkman S, Saver JL. Trends in acute ischemic stroke trials through the 20th century. Stroke 2001; 32:1349-59.
10. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford PW, Mayo NE. Physical Rehabilitations Outcome Measures. A Guide to Enhanced Clinical Decision-Making, 2nd edn. Toronto, ON: Canadian Physiotherapy Association, 2002.
11. University of Washington Internet Stroke Centre - Stroke Trials Registry. Stroke scales and clinical assessment tools. Available at http://www.strokecenter.org/trials/scales/scales-overview.htm (accessed March 2008).
12. Young FB, Weir CJ, Lees KR, GAIN International Trial Steering Committee and Investigators. Comparison of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale with disability outcome measures in acute stroke trials. Stroke 2005; 36:2187-92.
13. Lai SM, Duncan PW. Stroke recovery profile and the modified Rankin assessment. Neuroepidemiology 2001; 20:26-30.
14. Richards SH, Peters TJ, Coast J, Gunnell DJ, Darlow MA, Pounsford J. Inter-rater reliability of the Barthel ADL index: How does a researcher compare to a nurse? Clin Rehabil 2000; 14:72-8.
15. Van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJA, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988; 19:604-7.
16. Newcommon NJ, Green TL, Haley E, Cooke T, Hill MD. Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: Use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin scale. Stroke 2003; 34:377-8.
17. Shinohara Y, Minematsu K, Amano T, Ohashi Y. Modified Rankin scale with expanded guidance scheme and interview questionnaire: Interrater agreement and reproducibility of assessment. Cerebrovasc Dis 2006; 21:271-8.
18. Frey JL, Jahnke HK, Goslar PW, Partovi S, Flaster MS. tPA by telephone: extending the benefits of a comprehensive stroke center. Neurology 2005; 64:154-6.
19. Lyden P, Raman R, Liu L et al. NIHSS training and certification using a new digital video disk is reliable. Stroke 2005; 36:2446-9.
20. The Optimising Analysis of Stroke Trials (OAST) Collaboration, Baty PM, Gray LJ, Collier T, Pocock S, Carpenter J. Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical reanalysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials. Stroke 2007; 38:1911-5.
21. Saver JL. Novel end point analytic techniques and interpreting shifts across the entire range of outcome scales in acute stroke trials. Stroke 2007; 38:3055-62.
22. Saver JL, Kidwell CS, Liebeskind DS, Starkman S. Acute ischemic stroke trials. Stroke 2001; 32:275-8.
23. Sanossian N, Ohanian AG, Saver JL, Kim LI, Ovbiagele B. Frequency and determinants of nonpublication of research in the stroke literature. Stroke 2006; 37:2588-92.