Optimizing cutoff scores for the Barthel Index and the modified Rankin Scale for defining outcome in acute stroke trials

被引:249
作者
Uyttenboogaart, M
Stewart, RE
Vroomen, PCAJ
De Keyser, J
Luijckx, GJ
机构
[1] Univ Groningen, Med Ctr, Dept Neurol, NL-9700 RB Groningen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Groningen, Med Ctr, Dept Hlth Sci, NL-9700 RB Groningen, Netherlands
关键词
disability evaluation; outcome assessment; stroke;
D O I
10.1161/01.STR.0000177872.87960.61
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1984 / 1987
页数:4
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   Measuring outcomes as a function of baseline severity of ischemic stroke [J].
Adams, HP ;
Leclerc, JR ;
Bluhmki, E ;
Clarke, W ;
Hansen, MD ;
Hacke, W .
CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES, 2004, 18 (02) :124-129
[2]  
[Anonymous], MD STATE MED J
[3]  
[Anonymous], STROKE PRACTICAL GUI
[4]   Could stroke trials be missing important treatment effects? [J].
Berge, E ;
Barer, D .
CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES, 2002, 13 (01) :73-75
[5]   Different measures for assessing stroke outcome - An analysis from the international stroke trial in Italy [J].
Celani, MG ;
Cantisani, TA ;
Righetti, E ;
Spizzichino, L ;
Ricci, S .
STROKE, 2002, 33 (01) :218-223
[6]  
CONNELL FA, 1985, AM J EPIDEMIOL, V121, P744
[7]   THE CLINICAL MEANING OF RANKIN HANDICAP GRADES AFTER STROKE [J].
DEHAAN, R ;
LIMBURG, M ;
BOSSUYT, P ;
VANDERMEULEN, J ;
AARONSON, N .
STROKE, 1995, 26 (11) :2027-2030
[8]   Multinational randomised controlled trial of lubeluzole in acute ischaemic stroke [J].
Diener, HC .
CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES, 1998, 8 (03) :172-181
[9]   A reappraisal of reliability and validity studies in stroke [J].
DOlhaberriague, L ;
Litvan, I ;
Mitsias, P ;
Mansbach, HH .
STROKE, 1996, 27 (12) :2331-2336
[10]   Outcome measures in acute stroke trials - A systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice [J].
Duncan, PW ;
Jorgensen, HS ;
Wade, DT .
STROKE, 2000, 31 (06) :1429-1438