Outcome scales in stroke rehabilitation;İnme rehabilitasyonunda son durum skalalari

Turkiye Fiziksel Tip ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 168-172

  Aksakalli, Elif ^a   Turan, Yasemin ^b   Şendur, Ömer Faruk ^b  

^a DUMLUPINAR UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b ADNAN MENDERES UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Rehabilitation; Scale; Stroke

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; REHABILITATION CARE; REVIEW; STROKE; THERAPY EFFECT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 75449110921     PISSN: 13020234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Greenberg JP, Good DC. Functional assessment in neurologic disability. Lazar RB, editor. Principles of neurologic rehabilitation. USA: McGraw-Hill Companies; 1998. p. 7-27.
2. Sween U, Bautz-Holter E, Sodring KM, Wyller TB, Laake K. Association between impairments, self-care ability and social activities 1 year after stroke. Disabil Rehabil 1999;21:372-7. [Abstract] / [PDF]
3. Kasner SE. Clinical interpretation and use of stroke scales. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:603-12. [Abstract] / [PDF]
4. Dahl TH. International classification of functioning, disability and health: anintroduction and discussion of its potential impact on rehabilitation services and research. J Rehabil Med 2002;34:201-4. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF]
5. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Body Functions. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:191-207. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF]
6. Geyh S, Kurt T, Brockow T, Cieza A, Ewert T, Omar Z et al. Identifying the concepts contained in outcome measures of clinical trials on stroke using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a reference. J Rehabil Med 2004;(44 Suppl):56-62. [Abstract] / [PDF]
7. Salter KL, Teasell RW, Foley NC, Jutai JW. Outcome assessment in randomized controlled trials of stroke rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007;86(12):1007-12. [Abstract]
8. 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;16:232-40. [Abstract] / [PDF]
9. Lancu I, Olmer A. The minimental state examination-an up-to-date review. Harefuah 2006;145:687-90,701. [Abstract]
10. Grace J, Nadler JD, White DA, Guilmette TJ, Giuliano AJ, Monsch AU et al. Folstein vs modified Mini-Mental State Examination in geriatric stroke. Stability, validity, and screening utility. Arch Neurol 1995;52:477-84. [Abstract] / [Full Text]
11. Küçükdeveci AA, Kutlay S, Elhan AH, Tennant A. Preliminary study to evaluate the validity of the mini-mental state examination in a normal population in Turkey. Int J Rehabil Res 2005;28:77-9. [Abstract]
12. Elhan AH, Kutlay S, Küçükdeveci AA, Cotuk C, Oztürk G, Tesio L et al. Psychometric properties of the Mini-Mental State Examination in patients with acquired brain injury in Turkey. J Rehabil Med 2005;37:306-11. [Abstract] / [PDF]
13. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther 1987;67:206-7. [Abstract] / [PDF]
14. Pandyan AD, Price CI, Barnes MP, Johnson GR. A biomechanical investigation into the validity of the modified Ashworth Scale as a measure of elbow spasticity. Clin Rehabil 2003;17:290-3. [Abstract] / [Full Text]
15. Ansari NN, Naghdi S, Younesian P, Shayeghan M. Inter- and intrarater reliability of the Modified Modified Ashworth Scale in patients with knee extensor poststroke spasticity. Physiother Theory Pract 2008;24:205-13. [Abstract] / [Full Text]
16. Platz T, Eickhof C, Nuyens G, Vuadens P. Clinical scales for the assessment of spasticity, associated phenomena, and function: a systematic review of the literature. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:7-18. [Abstract] / [Full Text]
17. Aben I, Verhey F, Lousberg R, Lodder J, Honig A. Validity of the beck depression inventory, hospital anxiety and depression scale, SCL-90, and hamilton depression rating scale as screening instruments for depression in stroke patients. Psychosomatics 2002;43:386-93. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF]
18. Hisli N. Beck Depresyon Envanterinin geçerliliǧi üzerine bir çalişma. Psikoloji Dergisi 1988;6:118-22.
19. Oswanski MF, Sharma OP, Raj SS, Vassar LA, Woods KL, Sargent WM et al. Evaluation of two assessment tools in predicting driving ability of senior drivers. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007;86:190-9. [Abstract]
20. Wade DT, Collin C. The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? Disabil Rehabil 1988;10:64-7. [Abstract] / [Full Text]
21. 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. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF]
22. Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. Clin Epidemiol 1989;42:703-9. [Abstract]
23. Küçükdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Tennant A, Süldür N, Sonel B, Arasil T. Adaptation of the modified Barthel Index for use in physical medicine and rehabilitation in Turkey. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000;32:87-92. [Abstract]
24. Voll R, Krumm B, Schweisthal B. Functional independence measure (FIM) as assessing outcome in medical rehabilitation of neurologically ill adolescents. Int J Rehabil Res 2001;24:123-31. [Abstract]
25. Küçükdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Elhan AH, Sonel B, Tennant A. Adaptation of the Functional Independence Measure for use in Turkey. Clin Rehabil 2001;15:311-9. [Abstract] / [Full Text]
26. Gosman-Hedström G, Blomstrand C. Evaluation of a 5-level functional independence measure in a longitudinal study of elderly stroke survivors. Disabil Rehabil 2004;26:410-8. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF]
27. Schuling J, de Haan R, Limburg M, Groenier KH. The Frenchay Activities Index. Assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke 1993;24:1173-7. [Abstract] / [PDF]
28. Blum L, Korner-Bitensky N. Usefulness of the Berg Balance Scale in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2008;88:559-66. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF]
29. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI. The Balance Scale: reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. Scand J Rehabil Med 1995;27:27-36. [Abstract]
30. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:315-40. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF]
31. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604-7. [Abstract] / [PDF]
32. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Disabil Rehabil 1991;13:50-4. [Abstract]
33. Collin C, Wade D. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1990;53:576-9. [Abstract] / [PDF]
34. Lindsay R, James EL, Kippen S. The Timed Up and Go Test: unable to predict falls on the acute medical ward. Aust J Physiother 2004;50:249-51. [Abstract] / [PDF]
35. Yelnik A, Bonan I. Clinical tools for assessing balance disorders. Neurophysiol Clin 2008;38:439-45. [Abstract] / [PDF]
36. Gowland C, Stratford P, Ward M, Moreland J, Torresin W, Van Hullenaar S et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke 1993;24:58-63. [Abstract] / [PDF]
37. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:507-28. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF]
38. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:13-35. [Abstract]
39. Lyden PD, Hantson L. Assessment scales for the evaluation of stroke patients. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 1998;7:113-27. [Abstract]
40. Kücükdeveci AA, McKenna SP, Kutlay S, Gürsel Y, Whalley D, Arasil T. The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. Int J Rehabil Res 2000;23:31-8. [Abstract] / [Full Text]
41. Koçyiǧit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, Ölmez N, Memiş A. Kisa Form-36'nin (KF-36) Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliǧi ve geçerliliǧi. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi 1999;12:102-6.
42. Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Is EuroQol a valid measure of health related quality of life after stroke? Stroke 1997;28:1876-82. [Abstract] / [Full Text]
43. Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, Bonsel GJ, Aaronson NK. An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrument. Med Care 1997;35:522-37. [Abstract]
44. van Straten A, de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Schuling J, Bossuyt PM, van den Bos GA. A stroke-adapted 30-item version of the Sickness Impact Profile to assess quality of life (SA-SIP30). Stroke 1997;28:2155-61. [Abstract] / [Full Text]
45. Golomb BA, Vickrey BG, Hays RD. A review of health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke. Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19:155-85. [Abstract]
46. Salter KL, Moses MB, Foley NC, Teasell RW. Health-related quality of life after stroke: what are we measuring? Int J Rehabil Res 2008;31:111-7. [Abstract]
47. Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Clark DO, Biller J. Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale. Stroke 1999;30:1362-9. [Abstract] / [Full Text] / [PDF]