(Stroke. 2000;31:1429.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Comments, Opinions, and Reviews |
Outcome Measures in Acute Stroke Trials
A Systematic Review and Some Recommendations to Improve Practice
From the Center on Aging (P.W.D.), University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City; Rivermead Rehabilitation Centre (D.T.W.), Oxford, England; the Department of Neurology (H.S.J.), Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; and the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (P.W.D.), Kansas City, Mo.
Correspondence to Pamela W. Duncan, PhD, FAPTA, Center on Aging, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS 66160-7117. E-mail pduncan{at}kumc.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background—There is little consistency in the measurement of outcome in acute stroke trials, and this may complicate interpretation of the results and reduce the likelihood of detecting worthwhile drug effects. This study aims to investigate empirically the measures used to date and to give recommendations for future studies.
Summary of Comment—A systematic review of all published randomized studies of acute stroke drug intervention was undertaken, and the measures used were recorded. Fifty-one studies involving 57 214 subjects were identified. These studies used 14 different measures of impairment, 11 different measures of activity, 1 measure of "quality of life," and 8 miscellaneous other measures. Timing of outcome assessments varied from 1 week to 1 year, with the modal time being 3 months. Many studies used ordinal measures but dichotomized results for analysis. Of the 51 studies included in the review, only 21 demonstrated benefit with the defined primary outcome measure. In several studies, however, post hoc analysis using varied outcome measures or varied cut points for dichotomizing outcomes resulted in positive results, whereas the primary study analysis failed to do so.
Conclusions—There is no consensus on the level of outcome to be used, the method of measurement to be used, or the most appropriate timing of the assessment. It is recommended that future studies should include extended/instrumental activities and advanced mobility as components of the primary outcome measure, with outcome assessment being undertaken at 6 months. New initiatives in developing stroke-specific outcomes may address some of the current problems in the assessment of stroke outcomes
Key Words: outcome • stroke
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Several recently reported studies of acute treatments for stroke have generated controversy because there were inconsistencies between various outcomes within each study.1 2 3 4 For example, the results of the European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study (ECASS) I study of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA)1 were not positive; however, post hoc analysis of the same data using the outcome measures that were used in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) rtPA trial produced favorable findings.2 The primary analysis in the subsequent ECASS II assessment of rtPA did not confirm a benefit, yet post hoc analysis that varied the cutoff points for favorable outcome on the modified Rankin scale did produce statistically significant results.3 Similarly, in the recent Prolyse in Acute Cerebral Thromboembolism (PROACT) II study of intra-arterial recombinant prourokinase,4 conflicting results were observed when the outcome measures varied.
The use of less than optimal methods for defining and measuring outcome may have caused these problems. Setting this in context, in the last 20 years there have been 51 phase II and phase III randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of pharmacological interventions aimed at improving outcomes in individuals with stroke.1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Twenty-one of these trials have demonstrated benefit, but none has been confirmed or has significantly altered clinical management. The design of the trials and selection of outcome measures may have made detection of actual benefit less likely and the results controversial.
When considering the measurement of outcome, it is helpful to work
within a framework or model of illness to categorize and classify the
data that might be collected. The most widely used, and now generally
accepted, model of illness is that promulgated by the World Health
Organization (WHO), the International Classification of Impairments,
Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDH).53 This system has
recently been revised to provide health outcomes in terms of body,
person, or social function and to provide a common framework for
research.54 The new revision has changed terminology. The
terms disability and handicap have been replaced by more positive
terms, limitations in activities and restriction in participation. The
revision also includes important contextual factors (Table 1
).
|
Within the WHO ICIDH framework, outcomes may be measured at different levels. Any intervention will be expected to effect some specific change; in the case of most drugs, this is a reduction in the volume of brain damage, an effect at the level of pathology. However, the patient is more likely to value his or her ability to undertake a range of activities or to participate in social roles.55 Naturally, when selecting a measure, one must consider characteristics such as validity, reliability, and sensitivity to any differences expected. In addition, the items in any outcome measure used should relate to only a single level within the ICIDH because of the difficulty in interpreting results from a measure that reflects more than 1 level.56
Assessment of stroke outcomes poses additional problems, given the natural history of the illness. Change may continue over months, and the rate and extent of change may vary between the different levels of the ICIDH.57 58 The final status of any particular patient cannot always be predicted with certainty, but prognostic factors relating to groups of patients are known for most outcomes. Specifying a favorable outcome is difficult, because most outcomes form a continuum. Consequently, studies must consider the timing of any assessments, the measurement of factors known to impact on the chosen outcomes, the likely statistical distribution of outcomes at the chosen end point, and the methods of statistical analysis best suited to the chosen outcome.
Consensus on and consistency in the use of appropriate measures of outcome and factors relating to outcome, the timing of measurements, and the methods of analysis would have many benefits for the medical community. The interpretation of results might be simplified. Meta-analysis would be much easier and more powerful. Comparison between studies would be facilitated. New studies could use published data to estimate the number of subjects needed. Readers of research would gain familiarity with the outcomes measured.
This article reports on an empirical analysis of published studies, investigating various aspects of outcome measurement in light of the above discussion. Specifically, the study (1) evaluates the use and timing of outcome measures in published drug trials, (2) examines the extent to which definitions of favorable and unfavorable outcomes and the timing of assessments are complicated by the natural history of stroke recovery, and (3) makes recommendations on how to choose measures for use in trials of drug treatment in the acute phase of stroke.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
To identify stroke trials to be included in this synthesis, we undertook a systematic literature review of all phase II and phase III randomized trials of pharmacological interventions in the acute phase of stroke, published in English in 1980 or later. Multiple overlapping literature search strategies were used to identify a complete listing of trials. The MEDLINE database was searched by using combinations of the key words "cerebrovascular disease," "stroke," "trials," and "outcomes." We searched the Cochrane Collaboration’s comprehensive register of trials by using the key words "cerebrovascular disease." In addition to the automated search strategies, reference lists and bibliographies of related journal articles and books were searched manually for additional trials. Care was taken to include each study only once when multiple publications referred to a single study.
From each of the identified studies, we abstracted the following data: intervention tested, number of subjects, subject inclusion and exclusion criteria, end points measured, timing of outcome measurements, defined cutoff points for outcomes, percentage of treatment group that achieved each defined outcome, percentage of placebo group that achieved each outcome, whether results were adjusted for subject severity, and the conclusion (results with P<0.05 were considered significant).
After data collection, each outcome measure was classified into one of the following categories: death or, at the level of pathophysiological parameters (blood pressure, laboratory values, and recanalization), impairment, activity, or participation. Measures were classified according to the system used by Roberts and Counsell,55 which includes the Rankin/modified Rankin scale as a measure of activity rather than participation.
Measurement instruments were also categorized as those with evidence on validity and reliability and those for which we could find no such evidence; it was specifically noted whether each measure had been validated for use with acute-stroke patients. To determine this, we reviewed references cited in the trials and published works that review the properties of outcome measures used in stroke research, and we undertook searches of the literature when the validity and reliability of measures could not be established from either of the first 2 methods.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Our search resulted in the identification of 51 trials, enrolling a total of 57 214 subjects. Study size ranged from 21 to 21 106 subjects, with a median enrollment of 287. Table 2
includes a description of study
populations.
|
|
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for study subjects were variable, with much heterogeneity in age ranges included, severity of the current stroke, comorbid diseases, and preexisting disability. The entry criteria for stroke trials may need to be variable because therapies are being tested for different populations and for different interventions. However, most of the studies included in the present review did not attempt to adjust the measured outcomes for age, stroke severity, or comorbidities.
The present review found considerable variability in the selection
of outcome measures across studies. Of the 51 studies included in the
present review, only 29 specifically defined the measure(s) and
time frame(s) to be considered as their primary end points. When
looking at all outcome measurements (primary or secondary), we observed
variation in the levels of function selected for outcome measurement:
80% of the studies reviewed included a measure of impairment,
75% included a measure of activity, and only 1 study reported a
measure of quality of life or health status. None of the studies
reviewed included a measure of participation. Approximately two thirds
of the studies reported death as an end point (Table 3).
|
Within functional levels of outcome selected for measurement, there was
little consensus on the instruments used for measurement (Table 4).
|
Of the 42 studies that measured impairment, 8 different stroke scale instruments, which reflect various neurological symptoms, were used. The modified Mathew scale was the most commonly used instrument; it was selected for use in 10 studies. Only 2 studies measured cognitive deficit, with both using the Mini-Mental State Examination. One study used a comprehensive neuropsychological battery, which included existing measures of cognitive and communication processes. Depression, a common sequela after stroke that has been shown to relate to recovery,59 60 61 was assessed in 3 trials.
There appears to be better consensus in the selection of measures of activity limitation, with the Barthel Index and the Rankin or modified Rankin scale being selected most frequently. Nine other activity measurement instruments were selected for use in at least 1 of the studies. In 8 of the 51 studies reviewed, investigators apparently did not find existing measurement instruments adequate, and new self-developed measures were used.
The majority of the instruments selected for outcome measurement have
been shown to be reliable and valid for use with acute-stroke patients
(Table 4
). However, the impairment measure that was used most
frequently, the modified Mathew scale, has been harshly criticized by
numerous researchers62 63 64 65 66 for lack of validity, low
interobserver reliability, and low internal consistency.
The most commonly selected measure of activity, the Barthel Index, has
been extensively tested and is considered to have good reliability and
validity but is also known to be insensitive to small changes in
functional status and to have significant ceiling
effects.62 67 Another frequently used instrument, the
Rankin handicap scale, is widely recognized as simple and reliable but
has been criticized as inherently insensitive and for mixing objective
and subjective items, which span impairment, activity, and
participation aspects of recovery.62 68
We found little agreement in definition of favorable or unfavorable
outcomes. Although the Barthel Index was the most common measure, used
in 27 of the studies that we reviewed, the cutoff scores used to
differentiate favorable and unfavorable outcomes were defined in 7
different ways across the studies that used the measure. Similar
variability was found across other measures used in the reviewed
studies. Table 5 illustrates the cutoff
points used and the large variability in the proportion of the placebo
group that achieved the defined end point in each trial.
|
We also found tremendous variability in the selection of time frames
for measurement of outcomes (see Figures 1 and 2).
Although 3 months from baseline was the time frame most frequently
selected for the primary outcome and for final follow-up measurement,
the time points used varied from 1 day to 1 year for primary end points
and from 1 week to 1 year for final measurements.
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The present review has emphasized that there is no consistency in the selection of outcome measures or the timing of assessments nor is there agreement on the definition or measurement of recovery. There is tremendous heterogeneity of patients enrolled in trials without adequate adjustment for expected outcomes. This systematic review has included all the major trials and is unlikely to have missed many significant studies. It highlights the need for some agreement on assessing stroke outcomes.
In the present state of outcome measurement in acute stroke trials, there are many unmet needs that occur because researchers have not incorporated a systematic framework for assessing outcomes. In addition, some of the existing outcome measures were not developed specifically for stroke survivors or with full understanding of the range of stroke recovery.69
The WHO ICIDH-2 provides a useful framework. Within this framework, measures of impairment are the closest practical measures relating to the volume of brain loss, the pathophysiology that drugs presumably will reduce directly. Furthermore, impairment measures are probably the best markers of prognosis. Therefore, any study should include impairment level measures to assess case mix and as surrogate measures of outcome and should check to ensure that the expected neurological recovery has occurred. Impairment measures should not, however, be the primary outcome, because patients are more concerned with activity.
Measures at the level of activities (previously disability) are the
most important primary outcome measure. Within this domain, measures of
basic activities of daily living (ADL; eg, the Barthel ADL index) have
significant weaknesses, as illustrated by the conflicting finding in
the recent PROACT II study.4 In an unselected stroke
population, 60% of the patients will make a "complete
recovery," scoring the top score, whereas a further 20% will make no
recovery, remaining severely dependent.70 Thus, only
20% of patients have the potential to show a difference between
groups in outcome, significantly reducing the power of any study.
Consequently, researchers must consider recovery beyond ADL, especially
if they are enrolling individuals with mild and moderate stroke.
Measures that assess a higher level of activity (ie, instrumental or extended ADL) or mobility may be more sensitive to differences between groups.69 There are several advantages to measures of ADL and mobility. They can be collected equally reliably from the patient or from others; thus, there is little risk of missing data.71 72 They are relatively objective. They are simple and relevant to the patient, again increasing ease of full data collection. The main disadvantage is that the link between the extent of loss at the level of pathology and the level of activity is weak; therefore, other factors may influence the outcome.73 74 However, many of these factors (eg, diabetes, hyperthermia, depression, and social support75 ) are known and can be allowed for in measures of case mix. Mobility measures, such as the Rivermead Mobility Index,62 76 capture a range of performance that is meaningful to the patient. Assessments of ranges of mobility skills (sitting and standing balance and assisted ambulation to advanced mobility, such as climbing stairs or ambulation in the community) do not suffer from ceiling effects.62 76
Measurement of participation and quality of life both appear attractive but may pose problems. Measures of participation are only now being developed for stroke survivors.69 77 There is great debate about the construct of "quality of life," and many of the measures said to assess the quality of life are also measuring activities or emotion.78 Furthermore, there are many extraneous factors that influence both participation and quality of life, making it less easy to detect the effect of the drug.74
Measurement of emotion may be important, given the frequency of depression and its relation to activities, participation, and possibly quality of life.59 60 61 78 However, many patients will be unable to complete the assessment because of impaired cognition or language.79 Proxy assessment of emotion is not reliable72 ; thus, it is unlikely to be a useful measure when contrasting drug and placebo.
Two initiatives are currently underway to develop new stroke-specific instruments that address these unmet needs. Preliminary reports of the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life (SS-QOL)77 and the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS)69 have recently been published. Both instruments were developed from the perspective of the patient and caregiver, and they include domains that tap the full impairment/activity/participation continuum and the frequently omitted areas of language, cognition, and hand function. Both of these measures include a broader range of activities and mobility. Early evaluations of the psychometric properties of both instruments are promising, and the SIS demonstrates good sensitivity to change in patients with mild and moderate stroke. The SIS captures 8 domains that are individually scored. Four of the SIS domains (strength, hand function, ADL/instrumental ADL, and mobility) may be averaged to create a physical domain, but it is invalid to sum across the domains of communication, memory and thinking, emotion, and participation.
The time course of recovery from stroke must be considered when selecting the time of assessment. Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between recovery at the impairment, activity, and participation levels. The degree and timing of recovery are known to relate to the initial severity of the stroke.58 In the Copenhagen Stroke Study,57 patients were stratified according to initial stroke severity. Functional recovery (measured by the Barthel Index) was achieved within 2 months from stroke onset by 95% of the patients with mild strokes (41% of the population), within 3 months in patients with moderate strokes (26%), within 4 months in patients with severe strokes (14%), and within 5 months after stroke onset in patients with the most severe strokes (19%). Neurological recovery (as measured by the Scandinavian Stroke Scale) preceded functional recovery by a mean of 2 weeks.
Five to 6 months after stroke seems an appropriate time point at which to measure neurological and functional outcome. Spontaneous recovery does not plateau until 5 to 6 months after stroke, especially in more severe strokes. Therefore, unless time to recovery is an important outcome, the primary outcomes should occur when spontaneous recovery has plateaued in the placebo group. Measurement of participation should preferably take place at a time when the patient’s social condition has stabilized. Outcome measurement at the time of discharge from completed treatment and rehabilitation should be avoided because it limits comparability across studies because of geographic variations in treatment practices and lengths of stay and may be too early in the recovery process to detect maximal recovery.
Cutoff points for defining favorable or unfavorable outcomes are often arbitrarily selected. A recent review by Sulter et al80 of the use of the Barthel Index and modified Rankin scale in stroke trials found substantial variability in cutoff-point definition across trials and asserted that many of the cutoff points had been arbitrarily established and not validated. Similarly, we have found a lack of consistency in the selection of cutoff points in the trials reviewed in the present study. This lack of consistency in definition of a clinically meaningful recovery hinders the interpretation of results and comparison across trials. Limited evidence does exist to guide the researcher in the appropriate selection of cutoff scores. Granger et al81 have suggested that a score of 60 on the Barthel Index corresponds to the shift from dependence to assisted independence. In the same study, a score of 85 was found to correspond to the transition from minimal assistance to independence. Other studies82 83 have suggested that a Barthel score <85 corresponds to the point at which patients reported requiring assistance in ADL.
For the modified Rankin scale, Kay et al82 compared
self-reported dependence with Rankin scores and found that a cutoff
score of 
2 corresponded with 85% sensitivity and 87% specificity to
dependence, whereas a score of 3 corresponded to dependency with 94%
sensitivity and 70% specificity. Sulter et al80 suggest
that poor outcome may be easier to define than favorable outcome, that
a single scale may be inadequate to interpret outcome, and that an
appropriate definition may be that poor outcome exists if any of the
following occur: death, institutionalization due to stroke, modified
Rankin score >3, or Barthel Index score <60. However, if the
measurement focus is limited to unfavorable outcomes, one cannot look
at improvements, and we may fail to detect the shifting of patients to
higher levels of function. Dichotomizing scales to define favorable and
unfavorable outcomes reduces outcome information and may limit our
ability to detect a significant shift in disability. Additionally,
varying the cutoff points and selecting different levels of measurement
(impairment, activity, or participation) significantly shifts the
percentage of individuals who are deemed to have a good
outcome.58 Finally, we may not know the clinical relevance
of the dichotomization. Dichotomizing outcomes should be avoided;
instead, statistical analysis that uses the whole range of data
collected should be used. Because most of the outcome data are ordinal
and are not normally distributed, nonparametric statistics
should be used.
The results of the present review of drug trials in acute stroke demonstrate that in the past 20 years there has been little consistency in the selection of outcome measurement methods or in the definition of favorable or unfavorable outcomes in acute stroke trials. Instruments selected for outcome measurement are frequently inadequate. Clearly, when there is so much variability in the methods used for outcome assessment of randomized drug trials for acute stroke, it is difficult to know what to make of the results. Comparisons across trials are difficult because of inconsistent measure selection, varying definition of favorable or unfavorable outcomes, varying times for measurement, and differences in the inclusion and exclusion criteria for study subjects. The result may be that outcome measurement methods are contributing to the difficulty in the demonstration of treatment benefits. The most recently completed trials of rtPA serve as examples of the confusion in selecting outcomes. To improve the selection of stroke outcome measures, the following recommendations should be considered: (1) Primary outcome measures should be at the level of activities, capturing not only basic ADL but also including instrumental activities of daily living and advanced mobility. (2) Impairment outcome measures should be included to assess whether the drug has affected neurological recovery, the supposed primary level of action. (3) Assessment of the individual’s emotion should be considered, but because many individuals may not be able to respond and because proxy assessment of emotion is not reliable, there may be substantial missing data, rendering emotion as a poor primary outcome. (4) All outcome measures should have established psychometric properties (reliable, valid, and sensitive to change) and should have been tested in individuals with stroke. (5) Definition of recovery should not be dichotomized but rather should assess shifts in disability by use of nonparametric statistics. (6) The natural history of recovery of the population under study must be considered when outcome measures are selected. (7) Primary outcomes should be assessed at 6 months, especially in samples that include severe stroke. (8) Data collection should include baseline characteristics that could confound outcomes (eg, diabetes, body temperature, glucose levels, depression, and social support). (9) New initiatives in developing stroke-specific outcomes,69 77 which have incorporated the WHO ICIDH model and considered the range of stroke-related impairments and activities for different levels of stroke severity, may address some of the current problems in the assessment of stroke outcomes.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This study was supported by GlaxoWellcome, Inc, and the University of Kansas Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, which is funded by the National Institute of Aging (P60 AG-14635-02). We wish to thank Barbara LaClair, MS, of the Kansas City, Mo, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, for her help in researching and preparing this manuscript.
Received January 3, 2000; revision received March 9, 2000; accepted March 17, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Hacke W, Kaste M, Fieschi C, Toni D, Lesaffre E, von Kummer R, Boysen G, Bluhmki E, Hoxter G, Mahagne M-H, et al, for the ECASS Study Group. Intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for acute hemispheric stroke: the European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study (ECASS) JAMA. 1995;274:1017–1025.
2.
Hacke W, Bluhmki E, Steiner T, Tatlisumak T, Mahagne
MH, Sacchetti ML, Meier D. Dichotomized efficacy end points and global
end-point analysis applied to the ECASS intention-to-treat data
set: post hoc analysis of ECASS I. Stroke. 1998;29:2073–2075.
3. Hacke W, Kaste M, Fiechi C, von Kummer QR, Davalos A, Meier D, Larrue V, Bluhmki E, Davis S, Donnan G, et al, for the Second European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study Investigators. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of thrombolytic therapy with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke (ECASS II): Second European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study Investigators. Lancet.. 1998;352:1245–1251.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4.
Furlan A, Jigashida R, Wechsler L, Gent M, Rowley H,
Kase C, Pessin M, Ahuja A, Callahan F, Clark WM, et al.
Intra-arterial prourokinase for acute ischemic
stroke: the PROACT II study: a randomized controlled trial: Prolyse in
Acute Cerebral Thromboembolism. JAMA. 1999;282:2003–2011.
5.
Multicenter trial of hemodilution in
ischemic stroke: background and study protocol: Scandinavian
Stroke Study Group. Stroke. 1985;16:885–890.
6. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of nimodipine in acute stroke: Trust Study Group. Lancet. 1990;336:1205–1209.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7.
Clinical trial of nimodipine in acute
ischemic stroke: the American Nimodipine Study Group.
Stroke. 1992;23:3–8.
8. Ganglioside GM1 in acute ischemic stroke: the SASS Trial. Stroke. 1994;25:1141–1148.[Abstract]
9. Ancrod for the treatment of acute ischemic brain infarction: the Ancrod Stroke Study Investigators. Stroke. 1994;25:1755–1759.[Abstract]
10.
Tissue plasminogen activator
for acute ischemic stroke: the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group.
N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1581–1587.
11. Randomised controlled trial of streptokinase, aspirin, and combination of both in treatment of acute ischaemic stroke: Multicentre Acute Stroke Trial–Italy (MAST-I) Group. Lancet. 1995;346:1509–1514.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. A randomized trial of tirilazad mesylate in patients with acute stroke (RANTTAS): the RANTTAS Investigators. Stroke. 1996;27: 1453–1458.
13.
Thrombolytic Therapy with Streptokinase
in Acute Ischemic Stroke: the Multicenter Acute Stroke
Trial–European Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:145–150.
14. CAST: randomised placebo-controlled trial of early aspirin use in 20,000 patients with acute ischaemic stroke: CAST (Chinese Acute Stroke Trial) Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1997;349:1641–1649.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. The International Stroke Trial (IST): a randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19435 patients with acute ischaemic stroke: International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1997;349:1569–1581.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16.
Low molecular weight heparinoid, ORG
10172 (danaparoid), and outcome after acute ischemic stroke: a
randomized controlled trial: the Publications Committee for the Trial
of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) Investigators.
JAMA. 1998;279:1265–1272.
17. Davis, SM, Albers GW, Diener HC, Lees KR, Norris J. Termination of Acute Stroke Studies Involving Selfotel Treatment: ASSIST Steering Committee. Lancet. 1997:349:32. Letter.
18.
De Deyn PP, De Reuck J, Deberdt W, Vlietinck R,
Orgogozo JM, for the Members of the Piracetam in Acute Study (PASS)
Group. Treatment of acute ischemic stroke with piracetam.
Stroke. 1997;28:2347–2352.
19. Diener HC. Multinational randomised controlled trial of lubeluzole in acute ischaemic stroke: European and Australian Lubeluzole Ischaemic Stroke Study Group. Cerebrovasc Dis.. 1998;8:172–181.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20.
Donnan GA, Davis SM, Chambers BR, for the Australian
Streptokinase (ASK) Trial Study Group. Streptokinase for acute
ischemic stroke with relationship to time of administration.
JAMA. 1996;276:961–966.
21. Franke CL, Palm R, Dalby M, Schoonderwaldt HC, Hantson L, Eriksson B, Lang-Jenssen L, Smakman J. Flunarizine in stroke treatment (FIST): a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Acta Neurol Scand. 1996;93:56–60.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22.
Frei A, Cottier C, Wunderlich P, Lundin E. Glycerol
and dextran combined in the therapy of acute stroke: a placebo-
controlled, double-blind trial with a planned interim
analysis. Stroke. 1987;18:373–379.
23. Gelmers HJ, Gorter K, de Weerdt CJ, Wiezek HJ. A controlled trial of nimodipine in acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:203–207.[Abstract]
24.
Gray CS, French JM, Venables GS, Cartlidge NE, James
OF, Bates D. A randomized double-blind controlled trial of
naftidrofuryl in acute stroke. Age Ageing. 1990;19:356–363.
25.
Grotta J. Lubeluzole treatment of acute
ischemic stroke: the US and Canadian Lubeluzole
Ischemic Stroke Study Group. Stroke. 1997;28:2338–2246.
26.
Hossmann V, Heiss WD, Bewermeyer H, Wiedemann G.
Controlled trial of ancrod in ischemic stroke. Arch
Neurol. 1983;40:803–808.
27.
Hsu CY, Faught RE Jr, Furlan AJ, Coull BM, Huang DC,
Hogan EL, Linet OI, Yatsu FM. Intravenous prostacyclin in
acute nonhemorrhagic stroke: a placebo-controlled double-blind trial.
Stroke. 1987;18:352–358.
28.
Hsu CY, Norris JW, Hagen EL, Bladin F, Dinsdale HB,
Yatsu FM, Earnest MP, Schienberg P, Caplan LR, Karp HR. Pentoxifylline
in acute nonhemorrhagic stroke: a randomized, placebo-controlled
double-blind trial. Stroke. 1988;19:716–722.
29.
Huczynski J, Kosta-Trabka E, Sotowska W, Bieron
K, Grodzinski L, Dembinska-Kiec A, Pykosz-Mazur E, Peczak E, Gryglewski
RJ. Double-blind controlled trial of the therapeutic effects of
prostacyclin in patients with completed ischaemic stroke.
Stroke. 1985;16:810–814.
30. Kaste M, Fogelholm R, Erila T, Palomaki H, Murros K, Rissanen A, Sarna S. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of nimodipine in acute ischemic hemispheric stroke. Stroke. 1994;25:1348–1353.[Abstract]
31.
Kay R, Wong KS, Yu YL, Chan YW, Tsoi TH, Ahuja AT,
Chan FL, Fong KY, Law CB, Wong A, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin
for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. N Engl
J Med. 1995;333:1588–1593.
32.
Martin JF, Hamdy N, Nicholl J, Lewtas N, Bergvall U,
Owen P, Syder D, Holroyd M. Double-blind controlled trial of
prostacyclin in cerebral infarction. Stroke. 1985;16:386–390.
33.
Muir KW, Lees KR. A randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled pilot trial of intravenous magnesium
sulfate in acute stroke. Stroke. 1995;26:1183–1188.
34. Steiner TJ. Naftidrofuryl in the treatment of recent stroke: results of a controlled clinical trial. Vasa. 1988;24(suppl):44–47.
35.
Strand T, Asplund K, Eriksson S, Hagg E, Lithner F,
Wester PO. A randomized controlled trial of hemodilution therapy in
acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 1984;15:980–989.
36.
Yamaguchi T, Sano K, Takakura K, Saito I, Shinohara
Y, Asano T, Yasuhara H, for the Ebselen Study Group. Ebselen in acute
ischemic stroke: a placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical
trial. Stroke. 1998;29:12–17.
37.
Clark WM, Warach SJ, Pettigrew LC, Gammans RE,
Sabounjian LA. A randomized dose-response trial of citicoline in acute
ischemic stroke patients: Citicoline Stroke Study Group.
Neurology. 1997;49:671–678.
38.
del Zoppo GJ, Higashida RT, Furlan AJ, Pessin MS,
Rowley HA, Gent M, PROACT Investigators. PROACT: a phase II randomized
trial of recombinant pro-urokinase by direct arterial
delivery in acute middle cerebral artery stroke: PROACT Investigators:
Prolyse in Acute Cerebral Thromboembolism. Stroke. 1998;29:4–11.
39.
Dam M, Tonin P, DeBoni A, Pizzolato G, Casson S,
Ermani M, Freo U, Bron L, Battistin L. Effects of fluoxetine and
maprotiline on functional recovery in poststroke hemiplegic patients
undergoing rehabilitation therapy. Stroke. 1996;27:1211–1214.
40.
Argentino C, Sacchetti MC, Toni D, Savoini G,
D’Arcangelo E, Erminio F, Federico F, Milone FF, Gallai V, Gambi D.
GM1 ganglioside therapy in acute ischemic stroke: Italian Acute
Stroke Study– Hemodilution+Drug. Stroke. 1989;20:1143–1149.
41.
Yasaka, M, O’Keefe GJ, Chambers BR, Davis SM, Infeld
B, O’Malley H, Baird AE, Hirano T, Donnan GA. Streptokinase in acute
stroke: effect on reperfusion and recanalization:
Australian Streptokinase Trial Study Group. Neurology. 1998;50:626–632.
42. Grade C, Redford B, Chrostowski J, Toussaint L, Blackwell B. Methylphenidate in early poststroke recovery: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:1047–1050.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
43.
Wahlgren NG, Ranasinha KW, Rosolacci T, Franke CL,
van Ervan PM, Ashwood T, Claesson L. Clomethiazole acute stroke study
(CLASS): results of a randomized, controlled trial of clomethiazole
versus placebo in 1360 acute stroke patients. Stroke. 1999;30:21–28.
44.
Fagan SC, Gengo FM, Bates V, Levine SR, Kinkel WR.
Effect of nimodipine on blood pressure in acute ischemic stroke
in humans. Stroke. 1988;19:401–402.
45. Barer DH, Cruickshank JM, Ebrahim SR, Mitchell JR. Low dose beta blockade in acute stroke (‘BEST’ trial): an evaluation. BMJ. 1988;296:737–741.
46. Bayer AJ, Pathy MS, Newcombe R. Double-blind randomised trial of intravenous glycerol in acute stroke. Lancet. 1987;1:405–408.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
47. Hartmann A, Tsuda Y, Lagreze H. Effect of hypervolaemic haemodilution of regional cerebral blood flow in patients with acute ischaemic stroke: a controlled study with hydroxyethylstarch. J Neurol. 1987;235:34–38.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
48. Popa G, Popa C, Stanescu A, Ionescu G, Lugoji G, Radula D, Popescu A. Haemodilution therapy in acute ischaemic stroke. Neurol Psychiatr (Bucur).. 1989;27:79–90.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
49. Czlonkowska A, Cyrta B. Effect of naloxone on acute stroke. Pharmacopsychiatry. 1988;21:98–100.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
50. Paci A, Ottaviano P, Trenta A, Iannone G, DeSantis L, Lancia G, Moschini E, Carosi M, Amigoni S, Caresia L. Nimodipine in acute ischemic stroke: a double-blind controlled study. Acta Neurol Scand. 1989;80:282–286.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
51. Bogousslavsky J, Regli F, Zumstein V, Kobberline W. Double-blind study of nimodipine in non-severe stroke. Eur Neurol. 1990;30:23–26.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
52.
Martinez-Vila E, Guillen F, Villanueva JA,
Matias-Guiu J, Bigorra J, Gil P, Carbonell A, Martinez-Lage JM.
Placebo-controlled trial of nimodipine in the treatment of acute
ischemic cerebral infarction. Stroke. 1990;21:1023–8.
53. World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1980.
54. World Health Organization. ICIDH-2: International Classification of Functioning and Disability, Beta-2 Draft, Short Version. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1999.
55.
Roberts L, Counsell C. Assessment of clinical
outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1998;29:986–991.
56. Orgogozo JM. The concepts of impairment, disability, and handicap. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1994;4(suppl 2):2–6.
57. Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Pedersen PM, Kammersgaard L, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke, II: time course of recovery: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:406–412.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
58. Duncan PW, Lai SM, Keighley J. Defining post-stroke recovery. implications for design and interpretation of drug trials. Neuropharmacology. 2000;39:834–841.
59. Schubert DS, Taylor C, Lee S, Mentari A, Tamaklo W. Physical consequences of depression in the stroke patient. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1992;14:69–76.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
60. Kotila M, Numminen H, Waltimo O, Kaste M. Post-stroke depression and functional recovery in a population-based stroke register: the Finnstroke study. Eur J Neurol. 1999;6:309–312.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
61.
van de Weg, FB, Kuik DJ, Lankhorst GJ. Post-stroke
depression and functional outcome: a cohort study investigating the
influence of depression on functional recovery from stroke. Clin
Rehabil. 1999;13:268–272.
62. Wade DT. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1992.
63.
Lyden PD, Lau GT. A critical appraisal of stroke
evaluation and rating scales. Stroke. 1991;22:1345–1352.
64. Hantson L, De Weerdt W, De Keyser J, Diener HC, Franke C, Palm R, Van Orshoven M, Schoonderwalt H, De Klippel N, Herroelen L. The European Stroke Scale. Stroke. 1994;25:2215–2219.[Abstract]
65.
Gelmers HJ, Gorter K, de Weerdt CJ, Wiezer HKA.
Assessment of interobserver variability in a Dutch multicenter study on
acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 1988;19:709–711.
66. Brown ER, Tietjan GE, Devershwar RK, Ramadan NM, Levine SR, Dietrich KL, Nazareno F, Welch KMA. Clinical stroke scales: an intra- and inter-scale evaluation. Neurology. 1990;40(suppl 1):352. Abstract.
67.
Duncan PW, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Goldstein LB,
Bonito A, Witter DM, Enarson C, Matchar D. Health status of individuals
with mild stroke. Stroke. 1997;28:740–745.
68.
Lai SM, Duncan PW. Evaluation of the American Heart
Association Stroke Outcome Classification. Stroke. 1999;30:1840–1843.
69.
Duncan, PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson
S, Laster LJ. The stroke impact scale version 2.0: evaluation of
reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131–2140.
70. Jorgensen HS, Pedersen PM, Kammersgaard L, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Epidemiology of Stroke-Related Disability. In: Duncan PW, ed. Clinics In Geriatric Medicine: Stroke. Philadelphia. Pa: WB Saunders; 1999:785–800.
71.
Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, de Haan RJ, Limburg M.
Assessing quality of life after stroke: the value and limitations of
proxy ratings. Stroke. 1997;28:1541–1549.
72.
Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, Dennis M,
Sandercock P. Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with
the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate, and unbiased?
Stroke. 1997;28:1883–1887.
73.
de Haan R, Aaronson N, Limburg M, Hewer RL, van
Crevel H. Measuring quality of life in stroke. Stroke. 1993;24:320–327.
74. Duncan PW. Measuring recovery of function after stroke: clinical and measurement issues in selecting stroke outcome measures in clinical trials. In: Goldstein LB, ed. Restorative Neurology: Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Recovery After Stroke. New York, NY: Futura Publishing; 1998:225–240.
75.
Glass TA, Batchar DB, Belyea M, Feussner JR. Impact
of social support on outcome in first stroke. Stroke. 1993;24:64–70.
76. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud. 1991;13:50–54.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
77.
Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Clark DO,
Biller J. Development of a stroke-specific quality of life scale.
Stroke. 1999;30:1362–1369.
78.
Post MW, de Witte LP, Schrijvers AJ. Quality of life
and the ICIDH: towards an integrated conceptual model for
rehabilitation outcomes research. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13:5–15.
79. Kwa VI, Limburg M, de Haan RJ. The role of cognitive impairment in the quality of life after ischaemic stroke. J Neurol. 1996;243:599–604.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
80.
Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J. Use of the Barthel
index and modified Rankin scale in acute stroke trials.
Stroke. 1999;30:1538–1541.
81. Granger CV, Devis LS, Peters MC, Sherwood CC, Barrett JE. Stroke rehabilitation: analysis of repeated Barthel index measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1979;60:14–17.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
82.
Kay R, Wong KS, Perez G, Woo J. Dichotomizing stroke
outcomes based on self-reported dependency. Neurology. 1997;49:1694–1696.
83. Dennis M, Wellsood I, Warlow C. Are simple questions a valid measure of outcome after stroke? Cerebrovasc Dis. 1997;7:22–27.
84. Hantson L, DeKeyser J. Neurological scales in the assessment of cerebral infarction. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1994;4(suppl 2):7–14.
85.
D’Olhaberriague L, Litvan I, Mitsias P, Mansbach HH.
A reappraisal of reliability and validity studies in stroke.
Stroke. 1996;27:2331–2336.
86. Orgogozo JM. Advantages and disadvantages of neurological scales. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1998;8(suppl 2):2–7.
87.
Goldstein LB, Samsa GP. Reliability of the National
Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: extension to non-neurologists in the
context of a clinical trial. Stroke. 1997;28:307–310.
88.
Brott T, Marler JA, Olinger CP, Adams HP Jr, Tomsick
T, Barsan WG, Biller J, Eberle R, Hertzberg V, Walker M. Measurements
of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale.
Stroke. 1989;20:864–870.
89.
Goldstein LB, Bertels C, Davis JN. Interrater
reliability of the NIH stroke scale. Arch Neurol. 1989;46:660–662.
90.
Shafqat S, Kvedar JC, Guanci MM, Chang Y, Schwamm LH.
Role for telemedicine in acute stroke: feasibility and reliability of
remote administration of the NIH stroke scale. Stroke. 1999;30:2141–2145.
91. Lyden P, Brott T, Tilley B, Welch KM, Mascha ES, Levine S, Haley EC, Grotta J, Marler J. Improved reliability of the NIH Stroke Scale using video training: NINDS TPA Stroke Study Group. Stroke. 1994;25:2220–2226.[Abstract]
92. Roden-Jullig A, Britton M, Gustafson C, Fugl-Meyer A. Validation of four scales for the acute stage of stroke. J Intern Med. 1994;236:125–136.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
93.
Cote R, Battista RN, Wolfson C, Boucher J, Adam J,
Hachinski V. The Canadian Neurological Scale: validation and
reliability assessment. Neurology. 1989;39:638–643.
94.
Adams RJ, Meador KJ, Sethi KD, Grotta JC, Thomson DS.
Graded neurologic scale for use in acute hemispheric stroke treatment
protocols. Stroke. 1987;18:665–669.
95.
Grace J, Nadler JD, White DA, Guilmette TS, Giuliano
AJ, Monsch AU, Snow MG. Folstein vs modified Mini-Mental State
Examination in geriatric stroke: stability, validity, and screening
utility. Arch Neurol. 1995;52:477–484.
96.
Agrell B, Dehlin O. Comparison of six depression
rating scales in geriatric stroke patients. Stroke. 1989;20:1190–1194.
97.
Price CI, Curless RH, Rodgers H. Can stroke patients
use visual analogue scales? Stroke. 1999;30:1357–1361.
98. Wade DT, Collin C. The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10:64–67.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
99. Engberg A, Bentzen L, Garde B. Rehabilitation after stroke: predictive power of Barthel Index versus a cognitive and a motor index. Acta Neurol Scand. 1995;91:28–36.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
100. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Gresham GE, Kramer AA. The stroke rehabilitation outcome study, II: relative merits of the total Barthel index score and a four-item subscore in predicting patient outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1989;70:100–103.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
101.
Wolfe CD, Taub NA, Woodrow EJ, Burney PGJ. Assessment
of scales of disability and handicap for stroke patients.
Stroke. 1991;22:1242–1244.
102.
van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJA,
van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap
in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604–607.
103. Bamford JM, Sandercock PAG, Warlow CP, Slattery J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1989;20:828. Letter.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
104.
Ebrahim S, Barer D, Nouri F. Use of the
Nottingham Health Profile with patients after a stroke. J
Epidemiol Community Health. 1986;40:166–169.
105. Linn MW, Linn BS. The rapid disability rating scale-2. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1982;30:378–382.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
106. Shelton RL, Arndt WB, Johnson AF. Psychometric data for the token test derived from 8- and 9-year-old children with articulation disorders. J Am Audiol Soc. 1977;2:208–212.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
107. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD. Performance profiles of the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;72:84–89.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
108.
Anderson C, Laubscher S, Burns R. Validation of the
Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke
patients. Stroke. 1996;27:1812–1816.
109.
Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, Dennis M,
Sandercock P. Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health
status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after
stroke: United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial.
Stroke. 1998;29:63–68.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  N. J. Donovan, D. L. Kendall, S. C. Heaton, S. Kwon, C. A. Velozo, and P. W. Duncan Conceptualizing Functional Cognition in Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, April 1, 2008; 22(2): 122 - 135. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Yozbatiran, L. Der-Yeghiaian, and S. C. Cramer A Standardized Approach to Performing the Action Research Arm Test Neurorehabil Neural Repair, February 1, 2008; 22(1): 78 - 90. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. J. Quinn, J. Dawson, J. S. Lees, T.-P. Chang, M. R. Walters, K. R. Lees, and for the GAIN and VISTA Investigators Time Spent at Home Poststroke: "Home-Time" a Meaningful and Robust Outcome Measure for Stroke Trials Stroke, January 1, 2008; 39(1): 231 - 233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. MacDonald, H. Van der Lee, D. Pocock, C. Cole, N. Thomas, P. M. VandenBerg, R. Bourtchouladze, and J. A. Kleim A Novel Phosphodiesterase Type 4 Inhibitor, HT-0712, Enhances Rehabilitation-Dependent Motor Recovery and Cortical Reorganization After Focal Cortical Ischemia Neurorehabil Neural Repair, December 1, 2007; 21(6): 486 - 496. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A.-K. Welmer, M. von Arbin, V. Murray, L. W. Holmqvist, and D. K Sommerfeld Determinants of Mobility and Self-care in Older People With Stroke: Importance of Somatosensory and Perceptual Functions Physical Therapy, December 1, 2007; 87(12): 1633 - 1641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. J. Quinn, K. R. Lees, H.-G. Hardemark, J. Dawson, and M. R. Walters Initial Experience of a Digital Training Resource for Modified Rankin Scale Assessment in Clinical Trials Stroke, August 1, 2007; 38(8): 2257 - 2261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Saver Hemorrhage After Thrombolytic Therapy for Stroke: The Clinically Relevant Number Needed to Harm Stroke, August 1, 2007; 38(8): 2279 - 2283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Schmid, P. W. Duncan, S. Studenski, S. M. Lai, L. Richards, S. Perera, and S. S. Wu Improvements in Speed-Based Gait Classifications Are Meaningful Stroke, July 1, 2007; 38(7): 2096 - 2100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.-Y. Tseng, P. J. Hutchinson, M. Czosnyka, H. Richards, J. D. Pickard, and P. J. Kirkpatrick Effects of Acute Pravastatin Treatment on Intensity of Rescue Therapy, Length of Inpatient Stay, and 6-Month Outcome in Patients After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Stroke, May 1, 2007; 38(5): 1545 - 1550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M.-H. Chen, C.-L. Hsieh, H.-F. Mao, and S.-L. Huang Differences between patient and proxy reports in the assessment of disability after stroke Clinical Rehabilitation, April 1, 2007; 21(4): 351 - 356. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eriksson, P. Appelros, B. Norrving, A. Terent, and B. Stegmayr Assessment of Functional Outcome in a National Quality Register for Acute Stroke: Can Simple Self-Reported Items Be Transformed Into the Modified Rankin Scale? Stroke, April 1, 2007; 38(4): 1384 - 1386. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. M. Boyd, C. O. Weiss, J. Halter, K. C. Han, W. B. Ershler, and L. P. Fried Framework for Evaluating Disease Severity Measures in Older Adults With Comorbidity J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., March 1, 2007; 62(3): 286 - 295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Chamorro, M. Vargas, and J. Mensa Response to Letter by Kwan et al Stroke, July 1, 2006; 37(7): 1657 - 1657. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Kwan, H. C. Roberts, and N. Englyst Do We Really Understand the Pathophysiology and Clinical Impact of Poststroke Infection? Stroke, July 1, 2006; 37(7): 1656 - 1656. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Song, C. Jerosch-Herold, R. Holland, M. d. L. Drachler, K. Mares, and I. Harvey Statistical methods for analysing Barthel scores in trials of poststroke interventions: a review and computer simulations Clinical Rehabilitation, April 1, 2006; 20(4): 347 - 356. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. A. Anderson, D. B. Arciniegas, and C. M. Filley Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: Does It Impact Neuropsychiatric Outcome? J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci, November 1, 2005; 17(4): 486 - 488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. B. Young, C. J. Weir, K. R. Lees, and for the GAIN International Trial Steering Committe Comparison of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale With Disability Outcome Measures in Acute Stroke Trials Stroke, October 1, 2005; 36(10): 2187 - 2192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Uyttenboogaart, R. E. Stewart, P. C.A.J. Vroomen, J. De Keyser, and G.-J. Luijckx Optimizing Cutoff Scores for the Barthel Index and the Modified Rankin Scale for Defining Outcome in Acute Stroke Trials Stroke, September 1, 2005; 36(9): 1984 - 1987. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Ferro, P. Canhao, M.-G. Bousser, J. Stam, F. Barinagarrementeria, and for the ISCVT Investigators Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis in Elderly Patients Stroke, September 1, 2005; 36(9): 1927 - 1932. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Foerch, O. C. Singer, T. Neumann-Haefelin, R. du Mesnil de Rochemont, H. Steinmetz, and M. Sitzer Evaluation of Serum S100B as a Surrogate Marker for Long-term Outcome and Infarct Volume in Acute Middle Cerebral Artery Infarction Arch Neurol, July 1, 2005; 62(7): 1130 - 1134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. E. Lord and L. Rochester Measurement of Community Ambulation After Stroke: Current Status and Future Developments Stroke, July 1, 2005; 36(7): 1457 - 1461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. T. L. Wilson, A. Hareendran, A. Hendry, J. Potter, I. Bone, and K. W. Muir Reliability of the Modified Rankin Scale Across Multiple Raters: Benefits of a Structured Interview Stroke, April 1, 2005; 36(4): 777 - 781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Kim, C. L. Haney, and G. Van Ginhoven Utility of Outcome Measures After Treatment for Intracranial Aneurysms: A Prospective Trial Involving 520 Patients Stroke, April 1, 2005; 36(4): 792 - 796. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. A. Glass, L. F. Berkman, E. F. Hiltunen, K. Furie, M. M. Glymour, M. E. Fay, and J. Ware The Families In Recovery From Stroke Trial (FIRST): Primary Study Results Psychosom Med, November 1, 2004; 66(6): 889 - 897. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Saver Number Needed to Treat Estimates Incorporating Effects Over the Entire Range of Clinical Outcomes: Novel Derivation Method and Application to Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Stroke Arch Neurol, July 1, 2004; 61(7): 1066 - 1070. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Kalra, A. Evans, I. Perez, A. Melbourn, A. Patel, M. Knapp, and N. Donaldson Training carers of stroke patients: randomised controlled trial BMJ, May 8, 2004; 328(7448): 1099. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I-P. Hsueh, W.-C. Wang, C.-F. Sheu, and C.-L. Hsieh Rasch Analysis of Combining Two Indices to Assess Comprehensive ADL Function in Stroke Patients Stroke, March 1, 2004; 35(3): 721 - 726. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. H. Danton and W. D. Dietrich The Search for Neuroprotective Strategies in Stroke AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., February 1, 2004; 25(2): 181 - 194. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. S. Ward, M. M. Brown, A. J. Thompson, and R. S. J. Frackowiak Neural correlates of motor recovery after stroke: a longitudinal fMRI study Brain, November 1, 2003; 126(11): 2476 - 2496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. B. Young, K. R. Lees, and C. J. Weir Strengthening Acute Stroke Trials Through Optimal Use of Disability End Points Stroke, November 1, 2003; 34(11): 2676 - 2680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROGRESS Effects of a Perindopril-Based Blood Pressure-Lowering Regimen on Disability and Dependency in 6105 Patients With Cerebrovascular Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial Stroke, October 1, 2003; 34(10): 2333 - 2338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Als-Nielsen, W. Chen, C. Gluud, and L. L. Kjaergard Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials: A Reflection of Treatment Effect or Adverse Events? JAMA, August 20, 2003; 290(7): 921 - 928. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. S. Ward, M. M. Brown, A. J. Thompson, and R. S. J. Frackowiak Neural correlates of outcome after stroke: a cross-sectional fMRI study Brain, June 1, 2003; 126(6): 1430 - 1448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Fisher Recommendations for Advancing Development of Acute Stroke Therapies: Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable 3 Stroke, June 1, 2003; 34(6): 1539 - 1546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. L. Tirschwell, W.T. Longstreth Jr, K. J. Becker, R. E. Gammans Sr, L. A. Sabounjian, S. Hamilton, and L. B. Morgenstern Shortening the NIH Stroke Scale for Use in the Prehospital Setting Stroke, December 1, 2002; 33(12): 2801 - 2806. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Sturm, R. H. Osborne, H. M. Dewey, G. A. Donnan, R. A.L. Macdonell, and A. G. Thrift Brief Comprehensive Quality of Life Assessment After Stroke: The Assessment of Quality of Life Instrument in the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS) Stroke, December 1, 2002; 33(12): 2888 - 2894. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.-L. Hsieh, C.-F. Sheu, I-P. Hsueh, and C.-H. Wang Trunk Control as an Early Predictor of Comprehensive Activities of Daily Living Function in Stroke Patients Stroke, November 1, 2002; 33(11): 2626 - 2630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Gladstone, C. J. Danells, and S. E. Black The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke: A Critical Review of Its Measurement Properties Neurorehabil Neural Repair, September 1, 2002; 16(3): 232 - 240. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.T. L. Wilson, A. Hareendran, M. Grant, T. Baird, U. G.R. Schulz, K. W. Muir, and I. Bone Improving the Assessment of Outcomes in Stroke: Use of a Structured Interview to Assign Grades on the Modified Rankin Scale Stroke, September 1, 2002; 33(9): 2243 - 2246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Gladstone, S. E. Black, and A. M. Hakim Toward Wisdom From Failure: Lessons From Neuroprotective Stroke Trials and New Therapeutic Directions Stroke, August 1, 2002; 33(8): 2123 - 2136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Garratt, L. Schmidt, A. Mackintosh, and R. Fitzpatrick Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures BMJ, June 15, 2002; 324(7351): 1417 - 1417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Sulch, A. Melbourn, I. Perez, and L. Kalra Integrated Care Pathways and Quality of Life on a Stroke Rehabilitation Unit Stroke, June 1, 2002; 33(6): 1600 - 1604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Eng, K. S. Chu, A. S. Dawson, C.M. Kim, and K. E. Hepburn Functional Walk Tests in Individuals With Stroke: Relation to Perceived Exertion and Myocardial Exertion Stroke, March 1, 2002; 33(3): 756 - 761. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Evans, F. Harraf, N. Donaldson, and L. Kalra Randomized Controlled Study of Stroke Unit Care Versus Stroke Team Care in Different Stroke Subtypes Stroke, February 1, 2002; 33(2): 449 - 455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. W. Duncan, R. D. Horner, D. M. Reker, G. P. Samsa, H. Hoenig, B. Hamilton, B. J. LaClair, T. K. Dudley, and M. Kelly-Hayes Adherence to Postacute Rehabilitation Guidelines Is Associated With Functional Recovery in Stroke * Editorial Comment Stroke, January 1, 2002; 33(1): 167 - 178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G. Celani, T. A. Cantisani, E. Righetti, L. Spizzichino, and S. Ricci Different Measures for Assessing Stroke Outcome: An Analysis From the International Stroke Trial in Italy Stroke, January 1, 2002; 33(1): 218 - 223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Spedding Letters to the Editor: Reasons Why Stroke Trials Underestimate the Neuroprotective Effects of Drugs Stroke, January 1, 2002; 33(1): 324 - 325. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Schmitz and E. H. Blackstone International Council of Emboli Management (ICEM) Study Group results: risk adjusted outcomes in intraaortic filtration Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., November 1, 2001; 20(5): 986 - 991. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Gladstone and S. E. Black Update on intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for acute stroke: from clinical trials to clinical practice Can. Med. Assoc. J., August 1, 2001; 165(3): 311 - 317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. S. Kidwell, D. S. Liebeskind, S. Starkman, and J. L. Saver Trends in Acute Ischemic Stroke Trials Through the 20th Century Stroke, June 1, 2001; 32(6): 1349 - 1359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Uchino, D. Billheimer, and S. C. Cramer Entry Criteria and Baseline Characteristics Predict Outcome in Acute Stroke Trials Stroke, April 1, 2001; 32(4): 909 - 916. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. L. Saver, C. S. Kidwell, D. S. Liebeskind, S. Starkman, and P. W. Duncan Acute Ischemic Stroke Trials Response Stroke, January 1, 2001; 32 (1): 275 - 278. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||