The real-life reliability of the modified Rankin scale used in a stroke unit and a rehabilitation ward.

Postepy psychiatrii neurologii Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-30 DOI:10.5114/ppn.2025.149879
Natalia A Pożarowszczyk, Iwona Kurkowska-Jastrzębska, Iwona M Sarzyńska-Długosz, Maciej Nowak, Michał Karliński
{"title":"The real-life reliability of the modified Rankin scale used in a stroke unit and a rehabilitation ward.","authors":"Natalia A Pożarowszczyk, Iwona Kurkowska-Jastrzębska, Iwona M Sarzyńska-Długosz, Maciej Nowak, Michał Karliński","doi":"10.5114/ppn.2025.149879","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The modified Rankin scale (mRS) is the gold standard for measuring stroke-related disability in clinical trials and everyday practice. However, inter-observer variability is a source of bias that may undermine the reliability of retrospective studies. It may also depend on clinical backgrounds of different assessing physician. Our aim was to prospectively assess real-life consistency between stroke unit physicians (SUPs) and physical and rehabilitation medicine physicians (PRMPs) using mRS in patients transferred directly from a stroke unit (SU) to a rehabilitation ward (RW).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 48 consented stroke patients transferred within the same hospital from SU to RW. Patients were scored in mRS by a SUP and a PRMP at the day of transfer as a standard of care. The reference mRS score (REF) was obtained by a single- blinded stroke physician using the Rankin Focused Assessment form to guide an interview.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An mRS score was reported for all patients admitted to the RW and 33 patients discharged from the SU. The overall agreement was 75.8% between the assessments of SUPs and PRMPs (κ = 0.58), 72.7% between SUPs and the REF (κ = 0.55) and 70.0% between PRMPs and the REF (κ = 0.49). A similar agreement was observed for PRMPs and the REF in the sensitivity cohort of 48 patients (66.7%; κ = 0.46). Patients with the REF mRS of 2 (<i>n</i> = 6) were often scored as 3 both by SUPs (4/6) and PRMPs (5/6). In patients with the REF mRS of 3 or 4 there was no clear tendency towards overrating disability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reliability of mRS scoring in everyday practice is modest and does not seem to depend on clinical background of assessing physician.</p>","PeriodicalId":74481,"journal":{"name":"Postepy psychiatrii neurologii","volume":"34 1","pages":"19-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12076130/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postepy psychiatrii neurologii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ppn.2025.149879","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The modified Rankin scale (mRS) is the gold standard for measuring stroke-related disability in clinical trials and everyday practice. However, inter-observer variability is a source of bias that may undermine the reliability of retrospective studies. It may also depend on clinical backgrounds of different assessing physician. Our aim was to prospectively assess real-life consistency between stroke unit physicians (SUPs) and physical and rehabilitation medicine physicians (PRMPs) using mRS in patients transferred directly from a stroke unit (SU) to a rehabilitation ward (RW).

Methods: We enrolled 48 consented stroke patients transferred within the same hospital from SU to RW. Patients were scored in mRS by a SUP and a PRMP at the day of transfer as a standard of care. The reference mRS score (REF) was obtained by a single- blinded stroke physician using the Rankin Focused Assessment form to guide an interview.

Results: An mRS score was reported for all patients admitted to the RW and 33 patients discharged from the SU. The overall agreement was 75.8% between the assessments of SUPs and PRMPs (κ = 0.58), 72.7% between SUPs and the REF (κ = 0.55) and 70.0% between PRMPs and the REF (κ = 0.49). A similar agreement was observed for PRMPs and the REF in the sensitivity cohort of 48 patients (66.7%; κ = 0.46). Patients with the REF mRS of 2 (n = 6) were often scored as 3 both by SUPs (4/6) and PRMPs (5/6). In patients with the REF mRS of 3 or 4 there was no clear tendency towards overrating disability.

Conclusions: The reliability of mRS scoring in everyday practice is modest and does not seem to depend on clinical background of assessing physician.

改进的兰金量表在中风单位和康复病房使用的现实可靠性。
目的:改进的Rankin量表(mRS)是临床试验和日常实践中测量脑卒中相关残疾的金标准。然而,观察者之间的差异是偏见的来源,可能会破坏回顾性研究的可靠性。这也可能取决于不同评估医师的临床背景。我们的目的是前瞻性地评估卒中单元医生(SUPs)和物理和康复医学医生(PRMPs)在直接从卒中单元(SU)转移到康复病房(RW)的患者中使用mRS的现实一致性。方法:我们招募了48名在同一医院内从SU转到RW的同意脑卒中患者。患者在转移当天通过SUP和PRMP进行mRS评分,作为标准护理。参考mRS评分(REF)由一名单盲中风医生使用Rankin焦点评估表指导访谈获得。结果:RW住院的所有患者和SU出院的33例患者均报告了mRS评分,sup与PRMPs评估的总体一致性为75.8% (κ = 0.58), sup与REF评估的总体一致性为72.7% (κ = 0.55), PRMPs与REF评估的总体一致性为70.0% (κ = 0.49)。在48例患者的敏感性队列中,PRMPs和REF也有类似的一致性(66.7%;κ = 0.46)。REF mRS为2 (n = 6)的患者通常被sup(4/6)和PRMPs(5/6)评分为3。在REF mRS为3或4的患者中,没有明显的高估残疾的倾向。结论:mRS评分在日常实践中的可靠性是适度的,似乎不依赖于评估医生的临床背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信