Assessment of Functioning and Disability After Ischemic Stroke

C. Weimar, T. Kurth, K. Kraywinkel, M. Wagner, O. Busse, R. Haberl, H. Diener
{"title":"Assessment of Functioning and Disability After Ischemic Stroke","authors":"C. Weimar, T. Kurth, K. Kraywinkel, M. Wagner, O. Busse, R. Haberl, H. Diener","doi":"10.1161/01.STR.0000022808.21776.BF","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Purpose— Functioning and disability after ischemic stroke are clinically meaningful and of major relevance to patients. Despite many instruments available to assess these outcomes, little is known about their interrelation and predictive factors. Methods— We prospectively identified 4264 patients with acute ischemic stroke from 30 hospitals in Germany during a 1-year period between 1998 and 1999 and registered them in a common data bank. The patients were centrally followed up via telephone interview after 100 days and 1 year to assess various scales such as the Barthel Index (BI), modified Rankin Scale (MRS), extended Barthel Index (EBI), Short Form-36 Physical Functioning (SF-36 PF), and Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression short form (CES-D). Results— Outcome status could be assessed in 67.2% of patients 100 days after hospital admission. Of these, 13.9% had died, 53.7% had regained functional independence (BI <95), 46.3% had no or mild residual symptoms (MRS ≤1), and 44.6% had no higher cognitive deficits on the EBI. Of the patients who personally answered the follow-up questions, 67% had no major physical disability (SF-36 PF <60), and 32.9% reported symptoms classified as depression (CES-D ≥10). The high percentage of patients reaching the maximum score (ceiling effect) in the BI was less pronounced in the MRS and SF-36 PF. The predictive factors for dichotomized outcomes on each scale were similar for adverse functioning and disability but varied considerably for depression. Conclusions— To avoid ceiling effects in outcome distribution of patients treated in specialized stroke centers, the MRS and SF-36 PF instruments are preferable to the BI. Parametric use of the SF-36 PF could further improve outcome measurement by considering individual treatment effects.","PeriodicalId":22274,"journal":{"name":"Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":"69 1","pages":"2053-2059"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"200","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000022808.21776.BF","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 200

Abstract

Background and Purpose— Functioning and disability after ischemic stroke are clinically meaningful and of major relevance to patients. Despite many instruments available to assess these outcomes, little is known about their interrelation and predictive factors. Methods— We prospectively identified 4264 patients with acute ischemic stroke from 30 hospitals in Germany during a 1-year period between 1998 and 1999 and registered them in a common data bank. The patients were centrally followed up via telephone interview after 100 days and 1 year to assess various scales such as the Barthel Index (BI), modified Rankin Scale (MRS), extended Barthel Index (EBI), Short Form-36 Physical Functioning (SF-36 PF), and Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression short form (CES-D). Results— Outcome status could be assessed in 67.2% of patients 100 days after hospital admission. Of these, 13.9% had died, 53.7% had regained functional independence (BI <95), 46.3% had no or mild residual symptoms (MRS ≤1), and 44.6% had no higher cognitive deficits on the EBI. Of the patients who personally answered the follow-up questions, 67% had no major physical disability (SF-36 PF <60), and 32.9% reported symptoms classified as depression (CES-D ≥10). The high percentage of patients reaching the maximum score (ceiling effect) in the BI was less pronounced in the MRS and SF-36 PF. The predictive factors for dichotomized outcomes on each scale were similar for adverse functioning and disability but varied considerably for depression. Conclusions— To avoid ceiling effects in outcome distribution of patients treated in specialized stroke centers, the MRS and SF-36 PF instruments are preferable to the BI. Parametric use of the SF-36 PF could further improve outcome measurement by considering individual treatment effects.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
缺血性脑卒中后功能和残疾的评估
背景和目的-缺血性脑卒中后的功能和残疾对患者具有重要的临床意义和相关性。尽管有许多工具可用于评估这些结果,但对它们的相互关系和预测因素知之甚少。方法:我们前瞻性地从1998年至1999年间德国30家医院的4264例急性缺血性脑卒中患者中筛选,并将其登记在一个公共数据库中。每隔100天和1年对患者进行集中电话随访,评估Barthel指数(BI)、改良Rankin量表(MRS)、扩展Barthel指数(EBI)、SF-36身体功能简表(SF-36 PF)和流行病学研究中心抑郁简表(ce - d)。结果- 67.2%的患者在入院后100天可以评估结局状态。其中,13.9%死亡,53.7%恢复了功能独立(BI <95), 46.3%没有或轻度残留症状(MRS≤1),44.6%在EBI上没有更高的认知缺陷。在亲自回答随访问题的患者中,67%没有重大身体残疾(SF-36 PF <60), 32.9%报告症状分类为抑郁(CES-D≥10)。在MRS和SF-36 PF中,BI中达到最高分(上限效应)的患者比例较高,而在MRS和SF-36 PF中则不那么明显。对于不良功能和残疾,每个量表的二分类结果的预测因素相似,但对于抑郁症的预测因素差异很大。结论:为了避免在专门卒中中心治疗的患者结果分布的天花板效应,MRS和sf - 36pf仪器比BI更可取。sf - 36pf的参数化使用可以通过考虑个体治疗效果进一步改善结果测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Preventing Cancer, Cardiovascular Disease, and Diabetes: A Common Agenda for the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association Recurrent Stroke in Patients With Symptomatic Carotid Artery Occlusion Is Associated With High-Volume Flow to the Brain and Increased Collateral Circulation Risk of Stroke Associated With Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: A Nested Case-Control Study Imaging-Based Decision Making in Thrombolytic Therapy for Ischemic Stroke: Present Status Risk Factors for Falling in Home-Dwelling Older Women With Stroke: The Women’s Health and Aging Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1