This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 36/9/1984    most recent 01.STR.0000177872.87960.61v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Uyttenboogaart, M. Articles by Luijckx, G.-J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Uyttenboogaart, M. Articles by Luijckx, G.-J. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Related Collections Health policy and outcome research

(Stroke. 2005;36:1984.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Optimizing Cutoff Scores for the Barthel Index and the Modified Rankin Scale for Defining Outcome in Acute Stroke Trials

Maarten Uyttenboogaart, MD; Roy E. Stewart, MSc; Patrick C.A.J. Vroomen, MD, PhD; Jacques De Keyser, MD, PhD Gert-Jan Luijckx, MD, PhD

From the Departments of Neurology (M.U., P.C.A.J.V., J.D.K., G.J.L.) and Health Sciences (R.E.S.), University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands.

Correspondence to Maarten Uyttenboogaart, MD, Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail m.uyttenboogaart{at}neuro.umcg.nl

Background and Purpose— There is little agreement on how to assess outcome in acute stroke trials. Cutoff scores for the Barthel Index (BI) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) are frequently arbitrarily chosen to dichotomize favorable and unfavorable outcome. We investigated sensitivity and specificity of BI cutoff scores in relation to the mRS to obtain the optimal corresponding BI and mRS scores.

Methods— BI and mRS scores were collected from 1034 ischemic stroke patients. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for BI cutoff scores from 45 to 100 in mRS score 1, 2, and 3 and were plotted in receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results— The cutoff scores for the BI with the highest sum of sensitivity and specificity were 95 (sensitivity 85.6%; specificity 91.7%), 90 (sensitivity 90.7%; specificity 88.1%), and 75 (sensitivity 95.7%; specificity, 88.5%) for, respectively, mRS 1, 2, and 3. The area under the ROC curve was 0.933 in mRS 1, 0.960 in mRS 2, and 0.979 in mRS 3.

Conclusions— The optimal cutoff scores for the BI were 95 for mRS 1, 90 for mRS 2, and 75 for mRS 3. For future acute stroke trials that assess stroke outcome with the BI and mRS, we recommend the use of these BI cutoff score(s) with the corresponding mRS cutoff score(s), to ensure the use of consistent and uniform end points.

Key Words: disability evaluation • outcome assessment • stroke

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Uyttenboogaart, M. W. Koch, K. Koopman, P. C. A. J. Vroomen, J. De Keyser, and G.-J. Luijckx Safety of Antiplatelet Therapy Prior to Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke Arch Neurol, May 1, 2008; 65(5): 607 - 611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Frihagen, L. Nordsletten, and J. E. Madsen Hemiarthroplasty or internal fixation for intracapsular displaced femoral neck fractures: randomised controlled trial BMJ, December 15, 2007; 335(7632): 1251 - 1254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Uyttenboogaart, M. W. Koch, R. E. Stewart, P. C. Vroomen, G.-J. Luijckx, and J. De Keyser Moderate hyperglycaemia is associated with favourable outcome in acute lacunar stroke Brain, June 1, 2007; 130(6): 1626 - 1630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Banks and C. A. Marotta Outcomes Validity and Reliability of the Modified Rankin Scale: Implications for Stroke Clinical Trials: A Literature Review and Synthesis Stroke, March 1, 2007; 38(3): 1091 - 1096. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C Weimar, J Benemann, H-C Diener, and for the German Stroke Study Collaboration Development and validation of the Essen Intracerebral Haemorrhage Score J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, May 1, 2006; 77(5): 601 - 605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]