Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 441

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Neurological Scales and Scoring Systems for Acute Stroke Prognosis

Muir, Keith W., Weir, Christopher J., Murray, Gordon D., Povey, Chris, Lees, Kennedy R.·1996·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose Clinical trials routinely use stroke scales to compare baseline characteristics of treatment groups. It is unclear which stroke scale provides the most prognostic information. This often leads to collection of multiple scales in clinical trials. We aimed to determine which of several commonly used scales best predicted outcome. Methods A single observer scored consecutive admissions to an acute stroke unit on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), the Canadian Neurological Scale, and the Middle Cerebral Artery Neurological Score. Guy's prognostic score was determined from clinical data. Outcome at 2, 3, 6, and 12 months was categorized as good (alive at home) or poor (alive in care or dead). Predictive accuracy of the variables was compared by receiver operating characteristic curves and stepwise logistic regression. Results Of the 408 patients studied, 373 had confirmed acute stroke and completed follow-up. The three stroke rating scales each predicted 3-month outcome with an accuracy of .79 or greater. The NIHSS provided the most prognostic information: sensitivity to poor outcome, .71 (95% confidence interval [CI], .64 to .79); specificity, .90 (95% CI, .86 to .94); and overall accuracy, .83 (95% CI, .79 to .87). Logistic regression showed that the NIHSS added significantly to the predictive value of all other scores. No score added useful information to the NIHSS. A cut point of 13 on the NIHSS best predicted 3-month outcome. Conclusions Baseline NIHSS best predicts 3-month outcome. The Canadian Neurological Scale and Middle Cerebral Artery Neurological Score also perform well. Baseline assessments in clinical trials only need to include a single stroke rating scale.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.27.10.1817

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 441

Metadata

Authors
Muir, K. W., Weir, C. J., Murray, G. D., Povey, C., & Lees, K. R.
Venue
Stroke
Published
1996-10
Volume
27
Issue
10
Pages
1817-1820
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2135605048
Cited by
441
References
19
FWCI
6.33
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: Comparison of Neurological Scales and Scoring Systems for Acute Stroke Prognosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.27.10.1817
The paper
Muir, K. W., Weir, C. J., Murray, G. D., Povey, C., & Lees, K. R. (1996). Comparison of Neurological Scales and Scoring Systems for Acute Stroke Prognosis. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.27.10.1817

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.