Outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation

Handbook of Clinical Neurology

Volumn 110, Issue , 2013, Pages 105-111

  Duncan, Pamela Woods ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872292480     PISSN: 00729752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-52901-5.00009-5     Document Type: Chapter

References (25)

1. Balu S. Differences in psychometric properties, cut-off scores, and outcomes between the Barthel Index and Modified Rankin Scale in pharmacotherapy-based stroke trials: systematic literature review. Curr Med Res Opin 2009, 25:1329-1341.
2. Barak S., Duncan P.W. Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke. NeuroRx 2006, 3:505-524.
3. Butcher J.N., Perry J., Hahn J. Computers in clinical assessment: historical developments, present status, and future challenges. J Clin Psychol 2004, 60:331-345.
4. Carod-Artal F.J., Ferreira Coral L., Stieven Trizotto D., et al. Self- and proxy-report agreement on the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke 2009, 40:3308-3314.
5. Dromerick A.W., Edwards D.F., Diringer M.N. Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: a comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. J Rehabil Res Dev 2003, 40:1-8.
6. Duncan P.W. Measuring recovery of function after stroke: clinical and measurement issues in selecting stroke outcome measures in clinical trials. Restorative Neurology: Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Recovery After Stroke 1998, 225-240. Futura Publishing, New York, NY. L.B. Goldstein (Ed.).
7. Duncan P.W., Lai S.M., Tyler D., et al. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke 2002, 33:2593-2599.
8. Fitzpatrick R., Davey C., Buxton M.J., et al. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998, 2:1-74. i-iv.
9. Folstein M.F., Folstein S.E., McHugh P.R. "Mini-mental state:" a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975, 12:189-198.
10. Gershon R.C., Cella D., Fox N.A., et al. Assessment of neurological and behavioural function: the NIH Toolbox. Lancet Neurol 2010, 9:138-139.
11. Hachinski V., Iadecola C., Petersen R.C., et al. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network vascular cognitive impairment harmonization standards. Stroke 2006, 37:2220-2241.
12. Hobart J., Freeman J., Thompson A. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain 2000, 123:1027-1040.
13. Hobart J.C., Lamping D.L., Freeman J.A., et al. Evidence-based measurement: which disability scale for neurologic rehabilitation?. Neurology 2001, 57:639-644.
14. Jaeschke R., Singer J., Guyatt G.H. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989, 10:407-415.
15. Jenkinson C., Peto V., Fitzpatrick R., et al. Self-reported functioning and well-being in patients with Parkinson's disease: comparison of the short-form health survey (SF-36) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). Age Ageing 1995, 24:505-509.
16. Kirwan J.R. Minimum clinically important difference: the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow?. J Rheumatol 2001, 28:439-444.
17. Kwon S., Hartzema A.G., Duncan P.W., et al. Disability measures in stroke: relationship among the Barthel Index, the Functional Independence Measure, and the Modified Rankin Scale. Stroke 2004, 35:918-923.
18. Lai S.M., Duncan P.W. Stroke recovery profile and the Modified Rankin assessment. Neuroepidemiology 2001, 20:26-30.
19. McGuigan C., Hutchinson M. The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) is a reliable and sensitive measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004, 75:266-269.
20. Pendlebury S.T., Cuthbertson F.C., Welch S.J., et al. Underestimation of cognitive impairment by Mini-Mental State Examination versus the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in patients with transient ischemic attack and stroke: a population-based study. Stroke 2010, 41:1290-1293.
21. Perez L., Huang J., Jansky L., et al. Using focus groups to inform the Neuro-QOL measurement tool: exploring patient-centered, health-related quality of life concepts across neurological conditions. J Neurosci Nurs 2007, 39:342-353.
22. Salter K., Jutai J.W., Teasell R., et al. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity. Disabil Rehabil 2005, 27:315-340.
23. Sneeuw K.C., Sprangers M.A., Aaronson N.K. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease. J Clin Epidemiol 2002, 55:1130-1143.
24. Williams L.S., Bakas T., Brizendine E., et al. How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients' health-related quality of life?. Stroke 2006, 37:2081-2085.
25. World Health Organization (WHO) Introduction. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) 2001, 3-25. WHO, Geneva.