Reliability of Structured Modified Rankin Scale Assessment
2010; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 41; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/strokeaha.110.590547
ISSN1524-4628
AutoresTerence J. Quinn, Kate McArthur, Jesse Dawson, Matthew R. Walters, Kennedy R. Lees,
Tópico(s)Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
ResumoHomeStrokeVol. 41, No. 12Reliability of Structured Modified Rankin Scale Assessment Free AccessLetterPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessLetterPDF/EPUBReliability of Structured Modified Rankin Scale Assessment Terence J. Quinn, MD, Kate McArthur, MRCP, Jesse Dawson, MD, Matthew R. Walters, MD and Kennedy R. Lees, MD Terence J. QuinnTerence J. Quinn Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK , Kate McArthurKate McArthur Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK , Jesse DawsonJesse Dawson Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK , Matthew R. WaltersMatthew R. Walters Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK and Kennedy R. LeesKennedy R. Lees Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Originally published28 Oct 2010https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.590547Stroke. 2010;41:e602Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: October 28, 2010: Previous Version 1 To the Editor:The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is the most prevalent stroke outcome assessment in clinical trials, yet literature describing the properties of the scale remains limited,1 so we were pleased to see 2 papers describing clinometric assessment of mRS in the May issue of the Journal. Saver and colleagues describe a Rankin Focused Assessment Tool (RFAT),2 whereas Bruno's group describes a simplified mRS questionnaire.3 The proposed use of structured assessment is in saving interviewers' time and decreasing interobserver variability; both of these points are worthy of further discussion.The issue of time spent conducting mRS assessment is interesting. Based on collected data from 100 video-recorded, paired mRS interviews, we performed multivariate analysis to explore if clinical, demographic, interview, or interviewer-specific features were associated with disagreement in mRS scoring.4 The only factor significantly associated with variability in mRS scoring was interview length. Counterintuitively, it was longer, more detailed interviews that were associated with greatest interobserver variation. This could suggest that there is no value in lengthy discourses with the patient and that meaningful assessment can be made fairly promptly. Alternatively, it may suggest that there are some patients with more complex disability who, despite thorough assessment, are difficult to grade. However, with regard to actual time saved, simplified mRS questionnaire assessments last approximately 2 minutes and RFAT 3 to 5 minutes. In our studies, median duration of unstructured mRS was 4.1 minutes (SD 2.07); thus, benefits of any time-saving with these new structured assessments are debatable.Although attractive to the busy researcher, there are potential problems with a reductionist approach to mRS assessment. A strength of mRS as an outcome tool is the global approach to patient ability. Properly conducted, mRS interviews score patients based on perception of functioning within the context of their own lives and as such have potential to offer a more meaningful assessment than scales that focus solely on activities of daily living. In focusing the mRS interview to concrete ability, there is a danger this important extra information could be lost. Saver's group seems to have recognized this in development of RFAT, but we would urge caution in any attempts to further "structure" mRS assessment.Our group has experience in standard, structured, and centralized group assessment of mRS for clinical trial use. We are prospectively collecting data and will present in the future. Anecdotally, we have found that with focused assessment, patients struggle to answer categorically and interpretation of responses without qualification increases uncertainty in scoring.In terms of reducing observer variability, the reliability scores described for RFAT and simplified mRS questionnaire are encouraging compared with previous estimates.5 However, like with any novel tool, validation in independent populations is required before acceptance into routine clinical practice. We note that Wilson's original structured interview performed well in his validation cohort,6 but results were less impressive when the structured interview was used by other groups.7 To this end, we would encourage further study of RFAT, simplified mRS questionnaire, and other proposed assessment aids. In particular, comparison of RFAT and simplified mRS questionnaire reliability against "standard" mRS assessment would be useful. Structuring assessment is only one approach to improving mRS reliability and perhaps the greatest benefit will be seen in combining approaches, for example, partially structured interview with centralized committee scoring of a video-based assessment.Sources of FundingThis article was funded departmentally. We have published on use of mRS as an outcome scale and have successfully applied for grant funding from various bodies to further explore methods for improving outcome assessment in stroke.DisclosuresNone.1 Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. Int J Stroke. 2009; 4: 200–205.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Saver JL, Filip B, Hamilton S, Yanes A, Craig S, Cho M, Conwit R, Starkman S. Improving the reliability of stroke disability grading in clinical trials and clinical practice: the Rankin Focused Assessment (RFA). Stroke. 2010; 41: 992–995.LinkGoogle Scholar3 Bruno A, Shah N, Lin C, Close B, Hess DC, Davis K, Baute V, Switzer JA, Waller JL, Nichols FT. Improving modified Rankin Scale assessment with a simplified questionnaire. Stroke. 2010; 41: 1048–1050.LinkGoogle Scholar4 Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters M, Lees KR. Predicting variability in modified Rankin assessment [Abstract]. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009; 27 (suppl 6): 67.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters M, Lees KR. Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: a systematic review. Stroke. 2009; 40: 3393–3395.LinkGoogle Scholar6 Wilson JTL, Harendran A, Grant M, Baird T, Schulz UGR, Muir KW, Bone I. 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.LinkGoogle Scholar7 Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Exploring the reliability of the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke. 2009; 40: 762–766.LinkGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Zhou P, Liu J, Wang L, Feng W, Cao Z, Wang P, Liu G, Sun C, Shen Y, Wang L, Xu J, Meng P, Li Z, Xu W and Lan X (2020) Association of Small Dense Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol with Stroke Risk, Severity and Prognosis, Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis, 10.5551/jat.53132, 27:12, (1310-1324), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020. Zerna C, Burley T, Green T, Dukelow S, Demchuk A and Hill M (2019) Comprehensive assessment of disability post-stroke using the newly developed miFUNCTION scale, International Journal of Stroke, 10.1177/1747493019840933, 15:2, (167-174), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2020. Slaughter K, Meyer E, Bambhroliya A, Meeks J, Ahmed W, Bowry R, Behrouz R, Mir O, Begley C, Tyson J, Miller C, Warach S, Grotta J, McCullough L, Savitz S and Vahidy F (2019) Direct Assessment of Health Utilities Using the Standard Gamble Among Patients With Primary Intracerebral Hemorrhage, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 12:9, Online publication date: 1-Sep-2019. Lv S, Wu Q, Liu J, Shao J, Wen L, Xue J, Zhang X, Zhang Q and Zhang X (2018) Levels of Interleukin-1β, Interleukin-18, and Tumor Necrosis Factor-α in Cerebrospinal Fluid of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Patients May Be Predictors of Early Brain Injury and Clinical Prognosis, World Neurosurgery, 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.076, 111, (e362-e373), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2018. Detante O, Muir K and Jolkkonen J (2017) Cell Therapy in Stroke—Cautious Steps Towards a Clinical Treatment, Translational Stroke Research, 10.1007/s12975-017-0587-6, 9:4, (321-332), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2018. Muir K (2018) Preparing for Future Stem Cell Clinical Trials Cellular and Molecular Approaches to Regeneration and Repair, 10.1007/978-3-319-66679-2_15, (293-307), . Abdeldyem S, Goda T, Khodeir S, Abou Saif S and Abd-Elsalam S (2017) Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with acute ischemic stroke is associated with more severe stroke and worse outcome, Journal of Clinical Lipidology, 10.1016/j.jacl.2017.04.115, 11:4, (915-919), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2017. Wu H, Weng Y, Zheng L, Li H, Gong Q, Fu Y and Zhao J (2016) Polymorphism of the complement 5 gene is associated with large artery atherosclerosis stroke in Chinese patients, Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 10.1590/0004-282x20160139, 74:11, (881-886), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2016. Han J, Kim J, Park J, Song M, Song M, Kim D, You Y, Park G, Choi J, Cho M, Shin J and Cho J (2016) Scalp acupuncture and electromagnetic convergence stimulation for patients with cerebral infarction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial, Trials, 10.1186/s13063-016-1611-y, 17:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2016. Makin S, Doubal F, Dennis M and Wardlaw J (2015) Clinically Confirmed Stroke With Negative Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Stroke, 46:11, (3142-3148), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2015.Krebs H, Krams M, Agrafiotis D, DiBernardo A, Chavez J, Littman G, Yang E, Byttebier G, Dipietro L, Rykman A, McArthur K, Hajjar K, Lees K and Volpe B (2013) Robotic Measurement of Arm Movements After Stroke Establishes Biomarkers of Motor Recovery, Stroke, 45:1, (200-204), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2014.Kwok C, Potter J, Dalton G, George A, Metcalf A, Ngeh J, Nicolson A, Owusu-Agyei P, Shekhar R, Walsh K, Warburton E and Myint P (2013) The SOAR Stroke Score Predicts Inpatient and 7-Day Mortality in Acute Stroke, Stroke, 44:7, (2010-2012), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2013.Bruno A, Akinwuntan A, Lin C, Close B, Davis K, Baute V, Aryal T, Brooks D, Hess D, Switzer J and Nichols F (2011) Simplified Modified Rankin Scale Questionnaire, Stroke, 42:8, (2276-2279), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2011.Saver J, Filip B, Hamilton S, Yanes A, Craig S, Cho M, Conwit R and Starkman S (2010) Response to Letter by Quinn et al, Stroke, 41:12, (e603-e603), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2010. Kim J, Han J, Song M, Park G and Lee J (2020) Synergistic Effects of Scalp Acupuncture and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Cerebral Infarction: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial, Brain Sciences, 10.3390/brainsci10020087, 10:2, (87) Mandava P, Krumpelman C, Shah J, White D, Kent T and Hills R (2013) Quantification of Errors in Ordinal Outcome Scales Using Shannon Entropy: Effect on Sample Size Calculations, PLoS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0067754, 8:7, (e67754) December 2010Vol 41, Issue 12 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.590547PMID: 21030706 Originally publishedOctober 28, 2010 PDF download Advertisement
Referência(s)