Cited by 2,253Acute Ischemic Stroke ManagementStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryHealth Education and Validation

Outcomes Validity and Reliability of the Modified Rankin Scale: Implications for Stroke Clinical Trials: A Literature Review and Synthesis

Open access
Banks, Jamie L., Marotta, Charles A.·2007·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— The modified Rankin scale (mRS), a clinician-reported measure of global disability, is widely applied for evaluating stroke patient outcomes and as an end point in randomized clinical trials. Extensive evidence on the validity of the mRS exists across a large but fragmented literature. As new treatments for acute ischemic stroke are submitted for agency approval, an appreciation of the mRS’s attributes, specifically its relationship to other stroke evaluation scales, would be valuable for decision-makers to properly assess the impact of a new drug on treatment paradigms. The purpose of this report is to assemble and systematically assess the properties of the mRS to provide decision-makers with pertinent evaluative information. Methods— A Medline search was conducted to identify reports in the peer-reviewed medical literature (1957–2006) that provide information on the structure, validation, scoring, and psychometric properties of the mRS and its use in clinical trials. The selection of articles was based on defined criteria that included relevance, study design and use of appropriate statistical methods. Results— Of 224 articles identified by the literature search, 50 were selected for detailed assessment. Inter-rater reliability with the mRS is moderate and improves with structured interviews (κ 0.56 versus 0.78); strong test-re-test reliability (κ=0.81 to 0.95) has been reported. Numerous studies demonstrate the construct validity of the mRS by its relationships to physiological indicators such as stroke type, lesion size, perfusion and neurological impairment. Convergent validity between the mRS and other disability scales is well documented. Patient comorbidities and socioeconomic factors should be considered in properly applying and interpreting the mRS. Recent analyses suggest that randomized clinical trials of acute stroke treatments may require a smaller sample size if the mRS is used as a primary end point rather than the Barthel Index. Conclusions— Multiple types of evidence attest to the validity and reliability of the mRS. The reported data support the view that the mRS is a valuable instrument for assessing the impact of new stroke treatments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.0000258355.23810.c6

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Overall lesion load on T1-weighted MRI is associated with global disability, often measured by the modified Rankin Scale, and with performance on different cognitive domains in CADASIL.

    “The overall lesion load observed on T1-weighted MR images has been associated with the degree of global disability, often quantified using the modified Rankin Scale [4], and with performance on different cognitive domains [18, 76].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Berger K, Weltermann B, Kolominsky-Rabas P, Meves S, Heuschmann P, Bohner J, Neundorfer B, Hense HW, Buttner T. The reliability of stroke scales: the German version of NIHSS, ESS and Rankin scales. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 1999;67:81-93.
  2. Llanes JN, Kidwell CS, Starkman S, Leary MC, Eckstein M, Saver JL. The Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS): a new measure to characterize stroke severity in the field. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2004;8:46 -50.
  3. Lindley R. Very simple methods of assessing outcome after stroke can be valid. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1992;2:209.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Banks, J. L., & Marotta, C. A.
Affiliations
Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (US)
Venue
Stroke
Published
2007-03
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
1091-1096
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2020074777
Cited by
2,253
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 201 · 2025: 279 · 2024: 277 · 2023: 220 · 2022: 219 · 2021: 178 · 2020: 157 · 2019: 101 · 2018: 114 · 2017: 75 · 2016: 84 · 2015: 76 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 61 · 2012: 41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
AstraZeneca
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
modified Rankin Scale, stroke outcome assessment, psychometric properties, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, construct validity, convergent validity, acute ischemic stroke, stroke clinical trials, primary outcomes, Barthel Index, sample size determination, disability assessment
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Stroke, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review