Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 222

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing Quality of Life After Stroke: The Value and Limitations of Proxy Ratings

Open access
Sneeuw, K. C. A., Aaronson, N. K., de Haan, R. J., Limburg, M.·1997·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose Because many stroke survivors have cognitive and communication disorders, self-reported information on a patient’s quality of life (QL) cannot always be obtained. Proxy ratings may be used to prevent exclusion of this highly relevant subgroup of patients from QL studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate both the value and possible limitations of such proxy ratings. Methods The patient sample was composed of 437 patients who had suffered a stroke 6 months earlier. QL was assessed by means of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). For 108 patients who were not communicative because of cognitive or linguistic deficits, proxy ratings on the SIP were provided by the patients’ significant others. For 228 of the 329 communicative patients, both self-reported and proxy SIP ratings were obtained. Results When mean SIP scores for patients with both self-reported and proxy-derived data available were compared, the proxy mean scores were generally in close agreement with those of the patients. However, systematic differences were noted for several SIP scales, with proxies rating patients as having more QL impairments than the patients themselves. Intraclass correlations were moderate to high for most SIP subscales (average intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.63), the physical (ICC=.85) and psychosocial dimensions (ICC=.61), and the total SIP score (ICC=.77). The proxy SIP scores were sensitive to differences in patients’ functional health, which supports the validity of these ratings. For all patients combined, more QL impairments were found for patients with supratentorial cortical or subcortical infarctions and hemorrhages than for patients with lacunar infarctions and infratentorial strokes. Although proxy respondents were more frequently needed for patients with the first two types of stroke, we found no evidence of biased results as a consequence of an unbalanced use of proxy respondents across the different types of stroke. Conclusions These results suggest that the benefits of using proxy ratings for noncommunicative patients outweigh their limitations. The findings stress the need for inclusion of this important subgroup of patients in QL studies. Their significant others are able to provide useful information on these patients’ QL.

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.28.8.1541

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 222

Metadata

Authors
Sneeuw, K. C. A., Aaronson, N. K., de Haan, R. J., & Limburg, M.
Venue
Stroke
Published
1997-08
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
1541-1549
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W1991911445
Cited by
222
References
2
FWCI
7.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Assessing Quality of Life After Stroke: The Value and Limitations of Proxy Ratings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.28.8.1541
The paper
Sneeuw, K. C. A., Aaronson, N. K., de Haan, R. J., & Limburg, M. (1997). Assessing Quality of Life After Stroke: The Value and Limitations of Proxy Ratings. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.28.8.1541

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.