1991•StrokeRequires access

A critical appraisal of stroke evaluation and rating scales.

P DLyden, G TLau

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

To judge the efficacy of new, putative stroke therapies, we need a method to measure neurological deficit accurately in groups of patients before and after treatment. No single measurement technique has yet proven to be universally acceptable, but one approach is the use of rating instruments that summarize the neurological deficit found on clinical examination. Currently, stroke assessment scales may be based on the examination of physical deficits, an inventory of activities of daily living, or a global evaluation of functional outcome.Scientific methods for authenticating stroke scales are available in the psychometric and statistical literature. We review currently available stroke scales for their validity and reliability and propose investigations needed to refine further the standardized measurement of neurological deficit following stroke.We suggest that clinical stroke trials include a physical deficit scale and a global rating during the acute phase and that an activities of daily living scale b...

About this research paper

What this paper is about

To judge the efficacy of new, putative stroke therapies, we need a method to measure neurological deficit accurately in groups of patients before and after treatment. No single measurement technique has yet proven to be universally acceptable, but one approach is the use of rating instruments that summarize the neurological deficit found on clinical examination. Currently, stroke assessment scales may be based on the examination of physical deficits, an inventory of activities of daily living, or a global evaluation of functional outcome.Scientific methods for authenticating stroke scales are available in the psychometric and statistical literature. We review currently available stroke scales for their validity and reliability and propose investigations needed to refine further the standardized measurement of neurological deficit following stroke.We suggest that clinical stroke trials include a physical deficit scale and a global rating during the acute phase and that an activities of daily living scale b...

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

To judge the efficacy of new, putative stroke therapies, we need a method to measure neurological deficit accurately in groups of patients before and after treatment. No single measurement technique has yet proven to be universally acceptable, but one approach is the use of rating instruments that summarize the neurological deficit found on clinical examination. Currently, stroke assessment scales may be based on the examination of physical deficits, an inventory of activities of daily living, or a global evaluation of functional outcome.Scientific methods for authenticating stroke scales are available in the psychometric and statistical literature. We review currently available stroke scales for their validity and reliability and propose investigations needed to refine further the standardized measurement of neurological deficit following stroke.We suggest that clinical stroke trials include a physical deficit scale and a global rating during the acute phase and that an activities of daily living scale b...

Key concepts: Medicine, Stroke (engine), Rating scale, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Neurological deficit, Physical therapy, Neurological examination, Clinical trial

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A critical appraisal of stroke evaluation and rating scales. — Research Paper | ScholarLens