Lucie Tvrda, Kalliopi Mavromati, Martin Taylor-Rowan, Terence J Quinn
{"title":"比较改良兰金量表的传统方法和新方法的特性：系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Lucie Tvrda, Kalliopi Mavromati, Martin Taylor-Rowan, Terence J Quinn","doi":"10.1177/23969873241293569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is the most commonly used functional measure in stroke research but is limited by inter-rater reliability (IRR). Various interventions to improve mRS application have been described. We aimed to compare properties of differing approaches to mRS assessment.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Multidisciplinary databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health and Psychosocial Instruments [OVID], CINAHL, PsycINFO [EBSCO]) were searched for adult human stroke studies describing psychometric properties of mRS. Two researchers independently screened 20% titles and abstracts, reviewed all full studies, extracted data, and conducted risk of bias (ROB) analysis. Primary outcomes for random-effects meta-analysis were IRR measured by kappa (K) and weighted kappa (KW). Validity and inter-modality reliability measures (Spearman's rho, KW) were also summarised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 897 titles, 46 studies were eligible, including twelve differing approaches to mRS, 8608 participants. There was high ROB in 14 (30.4%) studies. Overall, reliability was substantial (<i>n</i> = 29 studies, <i>K</i> = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58-0.71) but IRR was higher for novel approaches to mRS, for example, the Rankin Focussed Assessment (<i>n</i> = 2 studies, <i>K</i> = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98) than standard mRS (<i>n</i> = 13 studies, <i>K</i> = 0.55, 95%CI:0.46-0.64). Reliability improved following the introduction of mRS training (<i>K</i> = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67; vs <i>K</i> = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.62-0.77). Validity ranged from poor to excellent, with an excellent overall concurrent validity of novel scales (<i>n</i> = 6 studies, KW = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75-0.97). The agreement between face-to-face and telephone administration was substantial (<i>n</i> = 5 studies, KW = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.74-0.87).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The mRS is a valid measure of function but IRR remains an issue. The present findings are limited by a high ROB and possible publication bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Interventions to improve mRS reliability (training, structured interview, adjudication) seem to be beneficial, but single interventions do not completely remove reliability concerns.</p>","PeriodicalId":46821,"journal":{"name":"European Stroke Journal","volume":" ","pages":"23969873241293569"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556649/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the properties of traditional and novel approaches to the modified Rankin scale: Systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lucie Tvrda, Kalliopi Mavromati, Martin Taylor-Rowan, Terence J Quinn\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23969873241293569\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is the most commonly used functional measure in stroke research but is limited by inter-rater reliability (IRR). Various interventions to improve mRS application have been described. We aimed to compare properties of differing approaches to mRS assessment.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Multidisciplinary databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health and Psychosocial Instruments [OVID], CINAHL, PsycINFO [EBSCO]) were searched for adult human stroke studies describing psychometric properties of mRS. Two researchers independently screened 20% titles and abstracts, reviewed all full studies, extracted data, and conducted risk of bias (ROB) analysis. Primary outcomes for random-effects meta-analysis were IRR measured by kappa (K) and weighted kappa (KW). Validity and inter-modality reliability measures (Spearman's rho, KW) were also summarised.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 897 titles, 46 studies were eligible, including twelve differing approaches to mRS, 8608 participants. There was high ROB in 14 (30.4%) studies. Overall, reliability was substantial (<i>n</i> = 29 studies, <i>K</i> = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58-0.71) but IRR was higher for novel approaches to mRS, for example, the Rankin Focussed Assessment (<i>n</i> = 2 studies, <i>K</i> = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98) than standard mRS (<i>n</i> = 13 studies, <i>K</i> = 0.55, 95%CI:0.46-0.64). Reliability improved following the introduction of mRS training (<i>K</i> = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67; vs <i>K</i> = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.62-0.77). Validity ranged from poor to excellent, with an excellent overall concurrent validity of novel scales (<i>n</i> = 6 studies, KW = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75-0.97). The agreement between face-to-face and telephone administration was substantial (<i>n</i> = 5 studies, KW = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.74-0.87).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The mRS is a valid measure of function but IRR remains an issue. The present findings are limited by a high ROB and possible publication bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Interventions to improve mRS reliability (training, structured interview, adjudication) seem to be beneficial, but single interventions do not completely remove reliability concerns.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46821,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Stroke Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"23969873241293569\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556649/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Stroke Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23969873241293569\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Stroke Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23969873241293569","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing the properties of traditional and novel approaches to the modified Rankin scale: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Introduction: The Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is the most commonly used functional measure in stroke research but is limited by inter-rater reliability (IRR). Various interventions to improve mRS application have been described. We aimed to compare properties of differing approaches to mRS assessment.
Patients and methods: Multidisciplinary databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health and Psychosocial Instruments [OVID], CINAHL, PsycINFO [EBSCO]) were searched for adult human stroke studies describing psychometric properties of mRS. Two researchers independently screened 20% titles and abstracts, reviewed all full studies, extracted data, and conducted risk of bias (ROB) analysis. Primary outcomes for random-effects meta-analysis were IRR measured by kappa (K) and weighted kappa (KW). Validity and inter-modality reliability measures (Spearman's rho, KW) were also summarised.
Results: From 897 titles, 46 studies were eligible, including twelve differing approaches to mRS, 8608 participants. There was high ROB in 14 (30.4%) studies. Overall, reliability was substantial (n = 29 studies, K = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58-0.71) but IRR was higher for novel approaches to mRS, for example, the Rankin Focussed Assessment (n = 2 studies, K = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98) than standard mRS (n = 13 studies, K = 0.55, 95%CI:0.46-0.64). Reliability improved following the introduction of mRS training (K = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.44-0.67; vs K = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.62-0.77). Validity ranged from poor to excellent, with an excellent overall concurrent validity of novel scales (n = 6 studies, KW = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75-0.97). The agreement between face-to-face and telephone administration was substantial (n = 5 studies, KW = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.74-0.87).
Discussion: The mRS is a valid measure of function but IRR remains an issue. The present findings are limited by a high ROB and possible publication bias.
Conclusion: Interventions to improve mRS reliability (training, structured interview, adjudication) seem to be beneficial, but single interventions do not completely remove reliability concerns.
期刊介绍：
Launched in 2016 the European Stroke Journal (ESJ) is the official journal of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO), a professional non-profit organization with over 1,400 individual members, and affiliations to numerous related national and international societies. ESJ covers clinical stroke research from all fields, including clinical trials, epidemiology, primary and secondary prevention, diagnosis, acute and post-acute management, guidelines, translation of experimental findings into clinical practice, rehabilitation, organisation of stroke care, and societal impact. It is open to authors from all relevant medical and health professions. Article types include review articles, original research, protocols, guidelines, editorials and letters to the Editor. Through ESJ, authors and researchers have gained a new platform for the rapid and professional publication of peer reviewed scientific material of the highest standards; publication in ESJ is highly competitive. The journal and its editorial team has developed excellent cooperation with sister organisations such as the World Stroke Organisation and the International Journal of Stroke, and the American Heart Organization/American Stroke Association and the journal Stroke. ESJ is fully peer-reviewed and is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Issues are published 4 times a year (March, June, September and December) and articles are published OnlineFirst prior to issue publication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
