The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Clinical Meaning of Rankin ‘Handicap’ Grades After Stroke
Abstract
Background and Purpose The Rankin Scale is a frequently used handicap index in stroke outcome research. However, relatively little is known about its validity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical meaning of Rankin grades by identifying the functional health aspects that contribute to Rankin scores. Methods We studied 438 patients 6 months after stroke. Data were collected on the following functional health indicators: alertness, communication, independence, disability in activities of daily living, mobility, instrumental disability, social interaction, and recreation. Disability in activities of daily living was assessed with the Barthel Index, whereas the other indicators were measured with subscales of the Sickness Impact Profile. The association between functional health and Rankin Scale was expressed in terms of relative frequencies and Somers’ D statistic. Linear regression analysis (after ordinal transformation) was used to identify the significant health factors that explain Rankin scores. Results Mobility, disability in daily and instrumental activities, and living arrangements showed a stronger association with Rankin scores (Somers’ D range, 0.60 to 0.74) than cognitive and social functioning (Somers’ D range, 0.34 to 0.47). Disability in activities of daily living turned out to be the most important explanatory factor of Rankin scores ( R 2 =67%). Conclusions The Rankin Scale is not a pure handicap measure but should be viewed as a global functional health index with a strong accent on physical disability. The index is useful as a simple and time-efficient outcome measure in large-scale multicenter trials. It is argued that at present there is no clear need to assess handicap as the primary outcome in medically oriented stroke intervention studies.
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
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
Cited by
Banks, J. L., & Marotta, C. A. (2007) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000258355.23810.c6 · Cited by 2,253
Taylor, D. W., Barnett, H. J., Haynes, R. B., Ferguson, G. G., Sackett, D. L., Thorpe, K. E., Simard, D., Silver, F. L., Hachinski, V., Clagett, G. P., et al. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)05388-x · Cited by 530
Paciaroni, M., Agnelli, G., Corea, F., Ageno, W., Alberti, A., Lanari, A., Caso, V., Micheli, S., Bertolani, L., Venti, M., et al. (2008) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.107.510321 · Cited by 507
A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial for Stroke (AVERT): Phase II Safety and Feasibility
Bernhardt, J., Dewey, H., Thrift, A., Collier, J., & Donnan, G. (2008) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.107.492363 · Cited by 366
Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation
Salter, K., Jutai, J., Teasell, R., Foley, N., BItensky, J., & Bayley, M. (2005) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/0963828040008552 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- de Haan, R., Limburg, M., Bossuyt, P., van der Meulen, J., & Aaronson, N.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2027-2030
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2034543700
- Cited by
- 457
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.00
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Clinical Meaning of Rankin ‘Handicap’ Grades After Stroke. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.26.11.2027
- The paper
- de Haan, R., Limburg, M., Bossuyt, P., van der Meulen, J., & Aaronson, N. (1995). The Clinical Meaning of Rankin ‘Handicap’ Grades After Stroke. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.26.11.2027
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.