| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submitted on July 7, 2005
From the Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine Utrecht, Rehabilitation Center De Hoogstraat, Utrecht and Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands (I. van de P., G.K., I. van W., E.L.). * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: i.v.d.port{at}dehoogstraat.nl.
Background and Purpose--The aim of the present study was to identify clinical determinants able to predict which individuals are susceptible to deterioration of mobility from 1 to 3 years after stroke. Methods--Prospective cohort study of stroke patients consecutively admitted for inpatient rehabilitation. A total of 205 relatively young, first-ever stroke patients were assessed at 1 and 3 years after stroke. Mobility status was determined by the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI), and decline was defined as a deterioration of Results--A decline in mobility status was found in 21% of the patients. Inactivity and the presence of cognitive problems, fatigue, and depression at 1 year after stroke were significant predictors of mobility decline. The multivariate model showed a good fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow test P>0.05), and discriminating ability was good (area under the curve 0.79). Conclusions--Mobility decline is an essential concern in chronic stroke patients, especially because it might lead to activities of daily living dependence and affects social reintegration. Early recognition of prognostic factors in patients at risk may guide clinicians to apply interventions aimed to prevent deterioration of mobility status in chronic stroke.
Revised on September 12, 2005
Accepted on October 12, 2005
Susceptibility to Deterioration of Mobility Long-Term After Stroke. A Prospective Cohort Study
Ingrid G.L. van de Port MSc*;
2 points on the RMI. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for mobility decline. The discriminating ability of the model was determined using a receiver operating characteristic curve.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. H. Buurke, A. V. Nene, G. Kwakkel, V. Erren-Wolters, M. J. IJzerman, and H. J. Hermens Recovery of Gait After Stroke: What Changes? Neurorehabil Neural Repair, November 1, 2008; 22(6): 676 - 683. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Verheyden, A. Nieuwboer, L. De Wit, V. Thijs, J. Dobbelaere, H. Devos, D. Severijns, S. Vanbeveren, and W. De Weerdt Time Course of Trunk, Arm, Leg, and Functional Recovery After Ischemic Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, April 1, 2008; 22(2): 173 - 179. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. F. Tyson, M. Hanley, J. Chillala, A. B. Selley, and R. C. Tallis The Relationship Between Balance, Disability, and Recovery After Stroke: Predictive Validity of the Brunel Balance Assessment Neurorehabil Neural Repair, July 1, 2007; 21(4): 341 - 346. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M Pohl, C Werner, M Holzgraefe, G Kroczek, I Wingendorf, G Hoolig, R Koch, and S Hesse Repetitive locomotor training and physiotherapy improve walking and basic activities of daily living after stroke: a single-blind, randomized multicentre trial (DEutsche GAngtrainerStudie, DEGAS) Clinical Rehabilitation, January 1, 2007; 21(1): 17 - 27. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
|
Stroke Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2005 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |