Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: a systematic review

<p><b>Background and Purpose:</b> A perceived weakness of the modified Rankin Scale is potential for interobserver variability. We undertook a systematic review of modified Rankin Scale reliability studies.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> Two researchers independently reviewed the literature. Crossdisciplinary electronic databases were interrogated using the following key words: Stroke*; Cerebrovasc*; Modified Rankin*; Rankin Scale*; Oxford Handicap*; Observer variation*. Data were extracted according to prespecified criteria with decisions on inclusion by consensus.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> From 3461 titles, 10 studies (587 patients) were included. Reliability of modified Rankin Scale varied from weighted κ=0.95 to κ=0.25. Overall reliability of mRS was κ=0.46; weighted κ=0.90 (traditional modified Rankin Scale) and κ=0.62; weighted κ=0.87 (structured interview).</p> <p><b>Conclusion:</b> There remains uncertainty regarding modified Rankin Scale reliability. Interobserver studies closest in design to large-scale clinical trials demonstrate potentially significant interobserver variability.</p&gt

Variability in modified rankin scoring across a large cohort of observers

<br>Background and Purpose— The modified Rankin scale (mRS) is the most commonly used outcome measure in stroke trials. However, substantial interobserver variability in mRS scoring has been reported. These studies likely underestimate the variability present in multicenter clinical trials, because exploratory work has only been undertaken in single centers by a few observers, all of similar training. We examined mRS variability across a large cohort of international observers using data from a video training resource.</br> <br>Methods— The mRS training package includes a series of “real-life” patient interviews for grading. Training data were collected centrally and analyzed for variability using kappa statistics. We examined variability against a standard of “correct” mRS grades; examined variability by country; and for UK assessors, examined variability by center and by professional background of the observer.</br> <br>Results— To date, 2942 assessments from 30 countries have been submitted. Overall reliability for mRS grading has been moderate to good with substantial heterogeneity across countries. Native English language has had little effect on reliability. Within the United Kingdom, there was no significant variation by profession.</br> <br>Conclusion— Our results confirm interobserver variability in mRS assessment. The heterogeneity across countries is intriguing because it appears not to be related solely to language. These data highlight the need for novel strategies to improve reliability.</br&gt

Exploring the reliability of the modified Rankin Scale

<p><b>Background and Purpose:</b> The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is the most prevalent outcome measure in stroke trials. Use of the mRS may be hampered by variability in grading. Previous estimates of the properties of the mRS have used diverse methodologies and may not apply to contemporary trial populations. We used a mock clinical trial design to explore inter- and intraobserver variability of the mRS.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> Consenting patients with stroke attending for outpatient review had the mRS performed by 2 independent assessors with pairs of assessors selected from a team of 3 research nurses and 4 stroke physicians. Before formal assessment, interviewers estimated disability based only on initial patient observation. Each patient was then randomized to undergo the mRS using standard assessment or a prespecified structured interview. The second interviewer in the pair reassessed the patient using the same method blinded to the colleague’s score. For each patient assessed, one rater was randomly assigned to video record their interview. After 3 months, this interviewer reviewed and regraded their original video assessment.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Across 100 paired assessments, interobserver agreement was moderate (k=0.57). Intraobserver variability was good (k=0.72) but less than would be expected from previous literature. Forty-nine assessments were performed using the structured interview approach with no significant difference between structured and standard mRS. Researchers were unable to reliably predict mRS from initial limited patient assessment (k=0.16).</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Despite availability of training and structured interview, there remains substantial interobserver variability in mRS grades awarded even by experienced researchers. Additional methods to improve mRS reliability are required.</p&gt

A prospective study using the ABCD2 score in screening for minor stroke or transient ischaemic attack in referrals to a fast track clinic response

No abstract available

Time spent at home poststroke: “home-time” a meaningful and robust outcome measure for stroke trials

<p><b>Background and Purpose:</b> Stroke outcome assessment requires some measure of functional recovery. Several instruments are in common use but all have recognized limitations. We examined duration of stay in the patient’s own home over the first 90 days since stroke—"home-time"—as an alternative outcome likely to show graded response with improved reliability.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> We examined prospectively collected data from the GAIN International trial using analysis of variance with Bonferroni contrasts of adjacent modified Rankin scale score categories.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> We had full outcome data from 1717 of 1788 patients. Increasing home-time was associated with improved modified Rankin scale scores (P<0.0001). The relationship held across all modified Rankin scale grades except 4 to 5.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Home-time offers a robust, useful, and easily validated outcome measure for stroke, particularly across better recovery levels.</p&gt

Deriving modified rankin scores from medical records

<p><b>Background and Purpose:</b> Modified Rankin score (mRS) is traditionally graded using a face-to-face or telephone interview. Certain stroke assessment scales can be derived from a review of a patient’s case-record alone. We hypothesized that mRS could be successfully derived from the narrative within patient case-records.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> Sequential patients attending our cerebrovascular outpatient clinic were included. Two independent, blinded clinicians, trained in mRS, assessed case-records to derive mRS. They scored “certainty” of their grading on a 5-point Likert scale. Agreement between derived and traditional face-to-face mRS was calculated using attribute agreement analysis.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Fifty patients with a range of disabilities were included. Case-record appraisers were poor at deriving mRS (k=0.34 against standard). Derived mRS grades showed poor agreement between observers (k=0.33). There was no relationship between certainty of derived mRS and proportion of correct grades (P=0.727).</p> <p><b>Conclusion:</b> Accurate mRS cannot be derived from standard hospital records. Direct mRS interview is still required for clinical trials.</p&gt