АУТОИММУННЫЕ ЗАБОЛЕВАНИЯ НЕРВНОЙ СИСТЕМЫ: СОСТОЯНИЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ

This review highlights the achievements in the field of autoimmune diseases of the nervous system over the last 15 years. It became possible to deepen the understanding of medical and social significance of these diseases, form the concept of nosologic unit heterogeneity, describe new and atypical forms of demyelinating diseases of the central and peripheral nervous system, autoimmune diseases of the neuromuscular synapse. Also, it is important to mention, that the new antigens were identified, the diagnostic panel of autoantibodies was developed and put into practice. Furthermore, the clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients were developed, the new drugs were tested and included in these guidelines. The scientists of the biggest Russian neurological centre, Research Centre of Neurology (Moscow), developed a vaccine for immunotherapy of multiple sclerosis, studied pathomorphosis of Guillain–Barre syndrome, specified the components of its pathogenesis, improved the programs of pathogenetic therapy, which led to the decrease in mortality from 30 to 3%, helped to decrease the AVL period by 2 times, hasten the recovery of independent walking by 2.5 times. Nowadays different biomarkers of diseases of the central and peripheral nervous system are studied and modern technologies in neurorehabilitation are applied. В статье освещены достигнутые за последние 15 лет результаты в области аутоиммунных заболеваний нервной системы: укрепилось понимание медико-социальной значимости этих болезней, сформировалась концепция гетерогенности нозологических единиц, описаны новые и атипичные формы демиелинизирующих заболеваний центральной и периферической нервной системы, аутоиммунных болезней нервно-мышечного синапса. Идентифицированы новые антигены, разработаны и внедрены в практику диагностические панели аутоантител. Сформулированы клинические рекомендации по диагностике и ведению, апробированы и включены в стандарты новые лекарственные препараты. В крупнейшем неврологическом центре России, Научном центре неврологии (Москва), разработана вакцина для иммунотерапии рассеянного склероза, исследуются биомаркеры болезней центральной и периферической нервной системы, внедряются современные технологии реабилитации. Приоритетными достижениями являются изучение патоморфоза синдрома Гийена–Барре, детализация звеньев патогенеза, совершенствование программы патогенетической терапии, позволившей снизить летальность с 30 до 3%, сократить в 2 раза сроки пребывания на искусственной вентиляции легких и в 2,5 раза ― сроки восстановления самостоятельной ходьбы.

Primary stroke prevention worldwide : translating evidence into action

Funding Information: The stroke services survey reported in this publication was partly supported by World Stroke Organization and Auckland University of Technology. VLF was partly supported by the grants received from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. MOO was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (SIREN U54 HG007479) under the H3Africa initiative and SIBS Genomics (R01NS107900, R01NS107900-02S1, R01NS115944-01, 3U24HG009780-03S5, and 1R01NS114045-01), Sub-Saharan Africa Conference on Stroke Conference (1R13NS115395-01A1), and Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials & Studies (D43TW012030). AGT was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. SLG was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council synergy grant. We thank Anita Arsovska (University Clinic of Neurology, Skopje, North Macedonia), Manoj Bohara (HAMS Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal), Denis ?erimagi? (Poliklinika Glavi?, Dubrovnik, Croatia), Manuel Correia (Hospital de Santo Ant?nio, Porto, Portugal), Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo (Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil), Anna Cz?onkowska (Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland), Gloria Ekeng (Stroke Care International, Dartford, UK), Jo?o Sargento-Freitas (Centro Hospitalar e Universit?rio de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal), Yuriy Flomin (MC Universal Clinic Oberig, Kyiv, Ukraine), Mehari Gebreyohanns (UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA), Ivete Pillo Gon?alves (Hospital S?o Jos? do Avai, Itaperuna, Brazil), Claiborne Johnston (Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA), Kristaps Jurj?ns (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Rizwan Kalani (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Grzegorz Kozera (Medical University of Gda?sk, Gda?sk, Poland), Kursad Kutluk (Dokuz Eylul University, ?zmir, Turkey), Branko Malojcic (University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia), Micha? Maluchnik (Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland), Evija Migl?ne (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Ocampo (University of Botswana, Princess Marina Hospital, Botswana), Louise Shaw (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK), Lekhjung Thapa (Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal), Bogdan Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health, Warsaw, Poland), Jie Yang (First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China), and Tomasz Zdrojewski (Medical University of Gda?sk, Gda?sk, Poland) for their comments on early draft of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated. We thank WSO for funding. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the study results, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the study results for publication. Funding Information: The stroke services survey reported in this publication was partly supported by World Stroke Organization and Auckland University of Technology. VLF was partly supported by the grants received from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. MOO was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (SIREN U54 HG007479) under the H3Africa initiative and SIBS Genomics (R01NS107900, R01NS107900-02S1, R01NS115944-01, 3U24HG009780-03S5, and 1R01NS114045-01), Sub-Saharan Africa Conference on Stroke Conference (1R13NS115395-01A1), and Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials & Studies (D43TW012030). AGT was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. SLG was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council synergy grant. We thank Anita Arsovska (University Clinic of Neurology, Skopje, North Macedonia), Manoj Bohara (HAMS Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal), Denis Čerimagić (Poliklinika Glavić, Dubrovnik, Croatia), Manuel Correia (Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal), Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo (Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil), Anna Członkowska (Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland), Gloria Ekeng (Stroke Care International, Dartford, UK), João Sargento-Freitas (Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal), Yuriy Flomin (MC Universal Clinic Oberig, Kyiv, Ukraine), Mehari Gebreyohanns (UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA), Ivete Pillo Gonçalves (Hospital São José do Avai, Itaperuna, Brazil), Claiborne Johnston (Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA), Kristaps Jurjāns (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Rizwan Kalani (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Grzegorz Kozera (Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland), Kursad Kutluk (Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir, Turkey), Branko Malojcic (University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia), Michał Maluchnik (Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland), Evija Miglāne (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Ocampo (University of Botswana, Princess Marina Hospital, Botswana), Louise Shaw (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK), Lekhjung Thapa (Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal), Bogdan Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health, Warsaw, Poland), Jie Yang (First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China), and Tomasz Zdrojewski (Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland) for their comments on early draft of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated. We thank WSO for funding. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the study results, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the study results for publication. Funding Information: VLF declares that the PreventS web app and Stroke Riskometer app are owned and copyrighted by Auckland University of Technology; has received grants from the Brain Research New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (16/STH/36), Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; APP1182071), and World Stroke Organization (WSO); is an executive committee member of WSO, honorary medical director of Stroke Central New Zealand, and CEO of New Zealand Stroke Education charitable Trust. AGT declares funding from NHMRC (GNT1042600, GNT1122455, GNT1171966, GNT1143155, and GNT1182017), Stroke Foundation Australia (SG1807), and Heart Foundation Australia (VG102282); and board membership of the Stroke Foundation (Australia). SLG is funded by the National Health Foundation of Australia (Future Leader Fellowship 102061) and NHMRC (GNT1182071, GNT1143155, and GNT1128373). RM is supported by the Implementation Research Network in Stroke Care Quality of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (project CA18118) and by the IRIS-TEPUS project from the inter-excellence inter-cost programme of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (project LTC20051). BN declares receiving fees for data management committee work for SOCRATES and THALES trials for AstraZeneca and fees for data management committee work for NAVIGATE-ESUS trial from Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseStroke is the second leading cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide and its burden is increasing rapidly in low-income and middle-income countries, many of which are unable to face the challenges it imposes. In this Health Policy paper on primary stroke prevention, we provide an overview of the current situation regarding primary prevention services, estimate the cost of stroke and stroke prevention, and identify deficiencies in existing guidelines and gaps in primary prevention. We also offer a set of pragmatic solutions for implementation of primary stroke prevention, with an emphasis on the role of governments and population-wide strategies, including task-shifting and sharing and health system re-engineering. Implementation of primary stroke prevention involves patients, health professionals, funders, policy makers, implementation partners, and the entire population along the life course.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Global, regional, and national burden of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.

BACKGROUND: The number of individuals living with dementia is increasing, negatively affecting families, communities, and health-care systems around the world. A successful response to these challenges requires an accurate understanding of the dementia disease burden. We aimed to present the first detailed analysis of the global prevalence, mortality, and overall burden of dementia as captured by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016, and highlight the most important messages for clinicians and neurologists. METHODS: GBD 2016 obtained data on dementia from vital registration systems, published scientific literature and surveys, and data from health-service encounters on deaths, excess mortality, prevalence, and incidence from 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016, through systematic review and additional data-seeking efforts. To correct for differences in cause of death coding across time and locations, we modelled mortality due to dementia using prevalence data and estimates of excess mortality derived from countries that were most likely to code deaths to dementia relative to prevalence. Data were analysed by standardised methods to estimate deaths, prevalence, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; computed as the sum of YLLs and YLDs), and the fractions of these metrics that were attributable to four risk factors that met GBD criteria for assessment (high body-mass index [BMI], high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and a diet high in sugar-sweetened beverages). FINDINGS: In 2016, the global number of individuals who lived with dementia was 43·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 37·8-51·0), increased from 20.2 million (17·4-23·5) in 1990. This increase of 117% (95% UI 114-121) contrasted with a minor increase in age-standardised prevalence of 1·7% (1·0-2·4), from 701 cases (95% UI 602-815) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 712 cases (614-828) per 100 000 population in 2016. More women than men had dementia in 2016 (27·0 million, 95% UI 23·3-31·4, vs 16.8 million, 14.4-19.6), and dementia was the fifth leading cause of death globally, accounting for 2·4 million (95% UI 2·1-2·8) deaths. Overall, 28·8 million (95% UI 24·5-34·0) DALYs were attributed to dementia; 6·4 million (95% UI 3·4-10·5) of these could be attributed to the modifiable GBD risk factors of high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and a high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages. INTERPRETATION: The global number of people living with dementia more than doubled from 1990 to 2016, mainly due to increases in population ageing and growth. Although differences in coding for causes of death and the heterogeneity in case-ascertainment methods constitute major challenges to the estimation of the burden of dementia, future analyses should improve on the methods for the correction of these biases. Until breakthroughs are made in prevention or curative treatment, dementia will constitute an increasing challenge to health-care systems worldwide

Global age-sex-specific fertility, mortality, healthy life expectancy (HALE), and population estimates in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2019: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background: Accurate and up-to-date assessment of demographic metrics is crucial for understanding a wide range of social, economic, and public health issues that affect populations worldwide. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 produced updated and comprehensive demographic assessments of the key indicators of fertility, mortality, migration, and population for 204 countries and territories and selected subnational locations from 1950 to 2019. Methods: 8078 country-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 938 surveys, 349 censuses, and 238 other sources were identified and used to estimate age-specific fertility. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression (ST-GPR) was used to generate age-specific fertility rates for 5-year age groups between ages 15 and 49 years. With extensions to age groups 10–14 and 50–54 years, the total fertility rate (TFR) was then aggregated using the estimated age-specific fertility between ages 10 and 54 years. 7417 sources were used for under-5 mortality estimation and 7355 for adult mortality. ST-GPR was used to synthesise data sources after correction for known biases. Adult mortality was measured as the probability of death between ages 15 and 60 years based on vital registration, sample registration, and sibling histories, and was also estimated using ST-GPR. HIV-free life tables were then estimated using estimates of under-5 and adult mortality rates using a relational model life table system created for GBD, which closely tracks observed age-specific mortality rates from complete vital registration when available. Independent estimates of HIV-specific mortality generated by an epidemiological analysis of HIV prevalence surveys and antenatal clinic serosurveillance and other sources were incorporated into the estimates in countries with large epidemics. Annual and single-year age estimates of net migration and population for each country and territory were generated using a Bayesian hierarchical cohort component model that analysed estimated age-specific fertility and mortality rates along with 1250 censuses and 747 population registry years. We classified location-years into seven categories on the basis of the natural rate of increase in population (calculated by subtracting the crude death rate from the crude birth rate) and the net migration rate. We computed healthy life expectancy (HALE) using years lived with disability (YLDs) per capita, life tables, and standard demographic methods. Uncertainty was propagated throughout the demographic estimation process, including fertility, mortality, and population, with 1000 draw-level estimates produced for each metric. Findings: The global TFR decreased from 2•72 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 2•66–2•79) in 2000 to 2•31 (2•17–2•46) in 2019. Global annual livebirths increased from 134•5 million (131•5–137•8) in 2000 to a peak of 139•6 million (133•0–146•9) in 2016. Global livebirths then declined to 135•3 million (127•2–144•1) in 2019. Of the 204 countries and territories included in this study, in 2019, 102 had a TFR lower than 2•1, which is considered a good approximation of replacement-level fertility. All countries in sub-Saharan Africa had TFRs above replacement level in 2019 and accounted for 27•1% (95% UI 26•4–27•8) of global livebirths. Global life expectancy at birth increased from 67•2 years (95% UI 66•8–67•6) in 2000 to 73•5 years (72•8–74•3) in 2019. The total number of deaths increased from 50•7 million (49•5–51•9) in 2000 to 56•5 million (53•7–59•2) in 2019. Under-5 deaths declined from 9•6 million (9•1–10•3) in 2000 to 5•0 million (4•3–6•0) in 2019. Global population increased by 25•7%, from 6•2 billion (6•0–6•3) in 2000 to 7•7 billion (7•5–8•0) in 2019. In 2019, 34 countries had negative natural rates of increase; in 17 of these, the population declined because immigration was not sufficient to counteract the negative rate of decline. Globally, HALE increased from 58•6 years (56•1–60•8) in 2000 to 63•5 years (60•8–66•1) in 2019. HALE increased in 202 of 204 countries and territories between 2000 and 2019. Interpretation: Over the past 20 years, fertility rates have been dropping steadily and life expectancy has been increasing, with few exceptions. Much of this change follows historical patterns linking social and economic determinants, such as those captured by the GBD Socio-demographic Index, with demographic outcomes. More recently, several countries have experienced a combination of low fertility and stagnating improvement in mortality rates, pushing more populations into the late stages of the demographic transition. Tracking demographic change and the emergence of new patterns will be essential for global health monitoring. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licens

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990�2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background: Rigorous analysis of levels and trends in exposure to leading risk factors and quantification of their effect on human health are important to identify where public health is making progress and in which cases current efforts are inadequate. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a standardised and comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of risk factor exposure, relative risk, and attributable burden of disease. Methods: GBD 2019 estimated attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 87 risk factors and combinations of risk factors, at the global level, regionally, and for 204 countries and territories. GBD uses a hierarchical list of risk factors so that specific risk factors (eg, sodium intake), and related aggregates (eg, diet quality), are both evaluated. This method has six analytical steps. (1) We included 560 risk�outcome pairs that met criteria for convincing or probable evidence on the basis of research studies. 12 risk�outcome pairs included in GBD 2017 no longer met inclusion criteria and 47 risk�outcome pairs for risks already included in GBD 2017 were added based on new evidence. (2) Relative risks were estimated as a function of exposure based on published systematic reviews, 81 systematic reviews done for GBD 2019, and meta-regression. (3) Levels of exposure in each age-sex-location-year included in the study were estimated based on all available data sources using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression method, or alternative methods. (4) We determined, from published trials or cohort studies, the level of exposure associated with minimum risk, called the theoretical minimum risk exposure level. (5) Attributable deaths, YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs were computed by multiplying population attributable fractions (PAFs) by the relevant outcome quantity for each age-sex-location-year. (6) PAFs and attributable burden for combinations of risk factors were estimated taking into account mediation of different risk factors through other risk factors. Across all six analytical steps, 30 652 distinct data sources were used in the analysis. Uncertainty in each step of the analysis was propagated into the final estimates of attributable burden. Exposure levels for dichotomous, polytomous, and continuous risk factors were summarised with use of the summary exposure value to facilitate comparisons over time, across location, and across risks. Because the entire time series from 1990 to 2019 has been re-estimated with use of consistent data and methods, these results supersede previously published GBD estimates of attributable burden. Findings: The largest declines in risk exposure from 2010 to 2019 were among a set of risks that are strongly linked to social and economic development, including household air pollution; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; and child growth failure. Global declines also occurred for tobacco smoking and lead exposure. The largest increases in risk exposure were for ambient particulate matter pollution, drug use, high fasting plasma glucose, and high body-mass index. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor globally for attributable deaths was high systolic blood pressure, which accounted for 10·8 million (95 uncertainty interval UI 9·51�12·1) deaths (19·2% 16·9�21·3 of all deaths in 2019), followed by tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 8·71 million (8·12�9·31) deaths (15·4% 14·6�16·2 of all deaths in 2019). The leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable DALYs globally in 2019 was child and maternal malnutrition, which largely affects health in the youngest age groups and accounted for 295 million (253�350) DALYs (11·6% 10·3�13·1 of all global DALYs that year). The risk factor burden varied considerably in 2019 between age groups and locations. Among children aged 0�9 years, the three leading detailed risk factors for attributable DALYs were all related to malnutrition. Iron deficiency was the leading risk factor for those aged 10�24 years, alcohol use for those aged 25�49 years, and high systolic blood pressure for those aged 50�74 years and 75 years and older. Interpretation: Overall, the record for reducing exposure to harmful risks over the past three decades is poor. Success with reducing smoking and lead exposure through regulatory policy might point the way for a stronger role for public policy on other risks in addition to continued efforts to provide information on risk factor harm to the general public. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licens

Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) scale: Translation and linguistic and cultural adaptation of the Russian language version

Introduction: The assessment of the level of consciousness in patients with acute brain injury is a mandatory first step of neurological examination. There is a need for clinical scales which allow to assess the level of wakefulness and degree of patient non-responsiveness in 2-3 minutes. The Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) scale is an optimal tool for such clinical assessment, which focuses on eye response, motor response, brainstem reflexes, and respiratory pattern. The absence of an officially translated and validated version impedes the use of FOUR scale in Russia, while the use of non-validated clinical scales carries a risk of erroneous diagnosis and reduces the quality and information value of research studies. Study aim: to develop an official Russian language version of the FOUR scale, taking into account its linguistic and cultural characteristics as part of the validation st udy. Materials and methods: The first stage of the validation process was completed, consisting of the linguistic and cultural adaptation of the FOUR scale. Medical professionals (Russian and English native speakers) performed forward and back translations of the original scale. The developed version then underwent review by the Expert Commission, which included a linguist, neurologists, anaesthesiologists and intensive care specialists. The next step was a pilot test of the scale. Results: The main difficulties in the translated text of the scale were solved during the first meeting of the Expert Commission. Then, taking into account the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a pilot test was performed by assessing 15 patients with the developed version of the FOUR scale. The statistics of this cohort are presented. Investigators had no difficulties in understanding and interpreting the scale instructions during the pilot test. Based on the results, the final version of the scale was adopted. The Russian version of the scale text with instructions and illustrations is presented in this paper. Conclusion: Translation, linguistic and cultural adaptation of the FOUR scale was conducted at the Research Centre of Neurology (Moscow, Russia). For the first time, the Russian version of the scale is officially presented and recommended for widespread use in clinical and research practice in Russia and other Russian-speaking countries based on the results of pilot testing. The next publication will present the results of the evaluation of psychometric properties (reliability, sensitivity, etc.) of this version of the scale. © 2019 Sovero Press Publishing House. All rights reserved

Validation of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain scale (LANSS) in Russia

Background. Objectivization of the characteristics of neuropathic pain is an important component of differential diagnosis in various diseases. Scales and questionnaires are topical diagnostic tools for assessing subjective symptoms for patients and health professionals. Objective to development and validation of the Russian version of the the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale (LANSS). Materials and methods. The study included two stages: linguocultural ratification and assessment of the psychometric properties of the developed Russian version. Results. The study showed a high level of reliability, validity and sensitivity of the developed Russian-language version of the scale. Conclusion. By the results of the study, the official validated Russian-language version of the scale is presented and recommended for use in work with Russian-speaking patients. © ABV-Press Publishing House. All rights reserved

Glasgow coma scale: Linguistic-cultural adaptation of the Russian version [Шкала комы Глазго (Glasgow Coma Scale, GCS): лингвокультурная адаптация русскоязычной версии]

INTRODUCTION Determination of the degree of depression of consciousness in patients with brain damage upon admission to the intensive care unit and intensive therapy is a primary task. In order to carry out a quick and at the same time sufficiently complete assessment of this kind, in 1974 neurosurgeons Graham Teasdale and Bryan Jennett from the University of Glasgow developed an algorithm consisting of a sequential series of tests in the form of eye opening, speech and motor responses, called Glasgow Coma Scale. This scale has received worldwide recognition and for many decades has been the main one for determining the state of consciousness in the most severe patients with brain damage. The absence of a validated version of this scale complicates its application in Russia, and the use of currently available versions that have not passed all the necessary stages of validation distorts the originally intended meaning of the scale and does not allow obtaining reliable clinical results when examining patients with acute impairment of consciousness. AIM OF STUDY Development of the official Russianlanguage version of the Glasgow Coma Scale, taking into account linguistic and cultural characteristics (1st stage of the validation study). MATeRIAL AND MeTHODS The staff of Center for Validation of Health Status Questionnaires and Scales in Russia, Research Center of Neurology obtained consent from G. Teasdale to validate Glasgow Coma Scale in Russia. Two Russianspeaking professional certified translators in the field of medicine performed a direct translation of the original Englishlanguage scale, and a reverse translation was carried out by native speakers with a medical education. Pilot study was performed in 15 patients with acute impairment of consciousness, two meetings of the expert committee were held (before and after pilot study). ReSULTS Based on the results of the first meeting of the expert commission, a linguistic and cultural adaptation of the text of the scale was carried out. During the pilot testing of the researchers did not have difficulties in understanding and interpreting instructions. As a result, the second meeting of the expert commission was held and the final Russianlanguage version was approved, which is presented in this article and is available on the website of Center for Validation of Health Status Questionnaires and Scales in Russia, Research Center of Neurology. CONCLUSION For the first time, the Russian language version of the Glasgow Coma Scale was officially presented and recommended for use both in clinical and research practice in Russia and other Russian speaking countries. The next publication will highlight the result of assessing the psychometric properties (reproducibility, interexpert agreement and sensitivity) of the Russianlanguage version of the scale. © 2021 Sklifosovsky Research Institute for Emergency Medicine. All rights reserved

Validation of the Modified Ashworth scale in Russia

Spasticity after stroke is a factor that causes disability and restricts activities of daily living, and presents a problem for both doctors and patients' relatives. At the present time, the Modified Ashworth scale (MAS) is a useful method of assessing increased muscle tone in patients after a cerebrovascular incident. The aim of the work is the linguistic and cultural adaptation of the MAS, with subsequent evaluation of its psychometric properties. Materials and methods: The study included 50 patients. The validation procedure consisted of linguistic and cultural adaptation and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Russian language version of the MAS. Test-retest was used to examine reliability (calculating Spearman's rank correlation coefficient) and Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to evaluate inter-rater agreement. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the MAS results with the Spasticity Scale score of the Research Centre of Neurology. Sensitivity was measured using Wilcoxon nonparametric test, which reflects the statistical significance of intertest differences before and after rehabilitation measures. Results: Test-retest analysis showed a significant correlation (ρ=0.87) between reassessment results. Inter-rater reliability was average (ρ=0.56), which confirms the scale's subjectivity and proves that patient assessment over time should be performed by the same investigator whenever possible. The correlation coefficient between the MAS and the Spasticity Scale of the Research Centre of Neurology was ρ=0.79. Statistically significant differences were found when patients were reassessed after rehabilitation treatment (p<0.0001). Conclusion: The Russian version of the MAS is a valid, reliable and sensitive instrument, which can be recommended for use in clinical practice, both for the initial assessment of spasticity and for monitoring the effect of treatment. © 2020 Sovero Press Publishing House. All rights reserved

Validation of the Russian version of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Physical Performance for assessment of patients with post-stroke paresis [Validatsiya russkoyazychnoi versii shkaly Fugl-Meiera dlya otsenki sostoyaniya patsientov s postinsul'tnym parezom]

OBJECTIVE: To perform linguistic and cultural adaptation of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Physical Performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study for assessment of psychometric properties included 53 post-stroke patients with neurological deficit presented by hemiparesis of different severity. The patients were assessed twice: at admission and after 14 days of treatment and rehabilitation procedures. The Russian version of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Physical Performance was developed with consideration of language and cultural characteristics. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Results of assessment of psychometric properties of the Russian-language version show its high validity, reliability and sensitivity. The developed Russian-language version of Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Physical Performance is recommended for using by neurologists and rehabilitation specialists both in everyday clinical practice and in clinical studies of patients with post-stroke paresis. The results obtained in the study show necessity for pre-training of specialists who perform assessment of patients with post-stroke paresis using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Physical Performance.ЦЕЛЬ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ: Лингвокультурная адаптация шкалы оценки физического состояния Фугл-Мейера (Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Physical Performance). МАТЕРИАЛ И МЕТОДЫ: В исследование по оценке психометрических свойств разработанной русскоязычной версии было включено 53 пациента, перенесших нарушение мозгового кровообращения с развитием гемипареза различной степени выраженности. Все пациенты были осмотрены дважды: в первый день поступления и через 14 дней после лечебно-восстановительных мероприятий. С учетом языковых и культурных особенностей подготовлена русскоязычная версия шкалы оценки физического состояния Фугл-Мейера. РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ И ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ: Данные, полученные при оценке психометрических свойств русскоязычной шкалы, отражают высокую степень ее содержательной валидности, надежности и чувствительности. Разработанная валидированная русскоязычная версия шкалы Фугл-Мейера является инструментом, рекомендованным к использованию врачами-неврологами и реабилитологами как в повседневной практике, так и при проведении клинических исследований с участием пациентов с постинсультным парезом. В ходе исследования были получены данные, свидетельствующие о необходимости предварительной подготовки (обучения, тренинга) специалистов, проводящих оценку больных с постинсультным гемипарезом с использованием шкалы Фугл-Мейера