Properties of proxy-derived modified Rankin Scale assessment

International Journal of Stroke

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 403-407

  Mcarthur, Kate ^a   Beagan, Michael L C ^a   Degnan, Andrew ^a   Howarth, Rosanne C ^a   Mitchell, Kirsten A ^a   Mcquaige, Fiona B ^a   Shannon, Mary Ann C ^a   Stott, Dj ^a   Quinn, Terence J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinimetrics; Disability; Modified Rankin Scale; Outcomes; Scales; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FAMILY; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NURSE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANKIN SCALE; RELIABILITY;

CLINIMETRICS; DISABILITY; MODIFIED RANKIN SCALE; OUTCOMES; SCALES; STROKE;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROXY; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; STROKE;

EID: 84881525242     PISSN: 17474930     EISSN: 17474949     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00759.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. Int J Stroke 2009; 4: 200-206.
2. Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: systematic review. Stroke 2009; 40: 3393-3395.
3. Duncan PW, Jorgensen HS, Wade DT. Outcome measures in acute stroke trials: a systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke 2000; 31: 1429-1438.
4. Oczkowski C, O'Donnell M. Reliability of proxy respondents for patients with stroke: a systematic review. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2010; 5: 410-416.
5. Jaffar S, Leach A, Smith PG, Cutts F, Greenwood B. Effects of misclassification of causes of death on the power of a trial to assess the efficacy of a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the Gambia. Int J Epidemiol 2003; 32: 430-436.
6. Grootendorst PV, Feeny DH, Furlong W. Does it matter whom and how you ask, inter and intra-rater agreement in the Ontario Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 127-135.
7. Quinn TJ, Lees KR, Hardemark HG, Dawson J, Walters MR. Initial experiences of a digital training resource for modified Rankin Scale assessment in clinical trials. Stroke 2007; 38: 2257-2261.
8. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174.
9. De Haan R, Limburg M, Bossuyt P, van der Meulen J, Aaronson N. The clinical meaning of Rankin handicap grades after stroke. Stroke 1995; 26: 2027-2030.
10. Tooth LR, McKenna KT, Smith M. Further evidence for the agreement between patients with stroke and their proxies on the Frenchay Activities Index. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 656-665.
11. Zimmerman SI, Magaziner J. Methodological issues in measuring the functional status of cognitively impaired nursing home residents the use of proxies and performance based measures. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1994; 8: S281-290.
12. Quinn TJ, Ray G, Atula S, Walters MR, Dawson J, Lees KR. Deriving modified Rankin scores from medical case-records. Stroke 2008; 39: 3421-3423.
13. Wilson JL, Hareendran A, Grant M etal. Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke 2002; 33: 2243-2246.
14. Saver JL, Filip B, Hamilton S etal. for the FAST-MAG Investigators and Coordinators. Improving the reliability of stroke disability grading in clinical trials and clinical practice: the Rankin Focused Assessment (RFA). Stroke 2010; 41: 992-995.
15. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH, Shuaib A, Carriere KC, Nasser AM. Agreement between patient and proxy assessments of health related quality of life after stroke using the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Stroke 2004; 35: 607-612.
16. 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.
17. Zhao H, Colleir JM, Quah DM, Purvis T, Bernhardt J. The modified Rankin Scale in acute stroke has good inter-rater reliability but questionable validity. Cerebrovasc Dis 2010; 29: 188-193.
18. Ludbrook J. Detecting systematic bias between two raters. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2004; 32: 113-115.
19. International Organization for Standardization, Technical Committee ISO/TC 69. Technical report - selected illustrations of attribute agreement analysis. International Organization for Standardization, 2010. ISO/TR 14468:2010(E).