Assessment scales in stroke: clinimetric and clinical considerations

As stroke care has developed, there has been a need to robustly assess the efficacy of interventions both at the level of the individual stroke survivor and in the context of clinical trials. To describe stroke-survivor recovery meaningfully, more sophisticated measures are required than simple dichotomous end points, such as mortality or stroke recurrence. As stroke is an exemplar disabling long-term condition, measures of function are well suited as outcome assessment. In this review, we will describe functional assessment scales in stroke, concentrating on three of the more commonly used tools: the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, the modified Rankin Scale, and the Barthel Index. We will discuss the strengths, limitations, and application of these scales and use the scales to highlight important properties that are relevant to all assessment tools. We will frame much of this discussion in the context of "clinimetric" analysis. As they are increasingly used to inform stroke-survivor assessments, we will also discuss some of the commonly used quality-of-life measures. A recurring theme when considering functional assessment is that no tool suits all situations. Clinicians and researchers should chose their assessment tool based on the question of interest and the evidence base around clinimetric properties

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