The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of scales of disability and handicap for stroke patients.
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to compare the reliability of the Barthel activities of daily living score, which assesses disability, with the Rankin scale, which assesses handicap, and to determine their mutual agreement. Fifty patients with stroke of varying severity were identified by a community-based stroke register and interviewed by two of three research nurses on two occasions that were 2-3 weeks apart. There was no evidence of a systematic difference between the first and second measurements. Repeatability was assessed using a kappa statistic with quadratic disagreement weights (kappa w) to take account of extreme differences. This measure was very good for both Barthel (kappa w = 0.98) and Rankin (kappa w = 0.95) scales. There was also excellent agreement between raters for the Barthel scale (kappa w greater than or equal to 0.88), but some indication of disagreement (kappa w = 0.75) between raters for the Rankin scale. Analysis of variance confirmed these findings. A conversion from the Barthel to the Rankin scale can be derived by assigning the most common Rankin score for the subjects with a given Barthel score, producing a kappa w of 0.91 for agreement. The Barthel scale is a more reliable and less subjective scale for assessing disability, from which a Rankin handicap score can then be derived to enable those managing stroke patients to assess aspects of handicap as well as disability.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients
van Swieten, J. C., Koudstaal, P. J., Visser, M. C., Schouten, H. J., & van Gijn, J. (1988) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.19.5.604 · Cited by 6,512
Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001 · Cited by 5,220
Cited by
Banks, J. L., & Marotta, C. A. (2007) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000258355.23810.c6 · Cited by 2,253
Favorable Outcome of Ischemic Stroke in Patients Pretreated with Statins
Martí-Fàbregas, J., Gomis, M., Arboix, A., Aleu, A., Pagonabarraga, J., Belvís, R., Cocho, D., Roquer, J., Rodríguez, A., García, M. D., et al. (2004) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000125863.93921.3f · Cited by 192
Fjærtoft, H., Rohweder, G., & Indredavik, B. (2011) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.110.601153 · Cited by 66
Askim, T., Bernhardt, J., Churilov, L., Fredriksen, K., & Indredavik, B. (2013) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.2340/16501977-1137 · Cited by 64
Ayis, S. A., Ayerbe, L., Ashworth, M., & DA Wolfe, C. (2018) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.037 · Cited by 55
Liman, T. G., Heuschmann, P. U., Endres, M., Flöel, A., Schwab, S., & Kolominsky-Rabas, P. L. (2012) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-011-6312-6 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Wolfe, C. D., Taub, N. A., Woodrow, E. J., & Burney, P. G.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 1991-10
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1242-1244
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2161289444
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.