The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliability (Inter-rater Agreement) of the Barthel Index for Assessment of Stroke Survivors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Abstract
Background and Purpose—: The Barthel Index (BI) is a 10-item measure of activities of daily living which is frequently used in clinical practice and as a trial outcome measure in stroke. We sought to describe the reliability (interobserver variability) of standard BI in stroke cohorts using systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. Methods—: Two assessors independently searched various multidisciplinary electronic databases from inception to April 2012 inclusive. Inclusion criteria comprised: original research, human stroke participants, and inter-rater reliability data on equivalent methods of BI administration. Manuscripts were reviewed against prespecified inclusion criteria. Primary outcome for meta-analysis was reliability, measured by weighted κ (κw). Results—: From 20 210 titles, 306 abstracts were reviewed, 12 studies met inclusion criteria, and 10 were included in meta-analysis (n=543 participants; range of participants in studies, 7–21). There was substantial clinical heterogeneity with respect to method of BI application; population studied and assessors. Two papers were graded high quality. Overall interobserver reliability of standard administration of the BI was excellent (κw, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90–0.96 random effects modeling). Conclusions—: The BI has excellent inter-rater reliability for standard administration after stroke. However, included studies were modest in size, with clinical heterogeneity and variable methodological quality. Despite these limitations, standard BI seems an appropriate outcome measure for stroke trials and practice.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Functional evaluation : Barthel index
Mahonery, F. I. (1965) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 12,762
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed
Kottner, J., Audigé, L., Brorson, S., Donner, A., Gajewski, B. J., Hróbjartsson, A., Roberts, C., Shoukri, M., & Streiner, D. L. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002 · Cited by 2,174
The Barthel ADL Index: A standard measure of physical disability?
Wade, D. T., & Collin, C. (1988) · International Disability Studies · doi:10.3109/09638288809164105 · Cited by 1,582
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide To Their Development And Use
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198528470.001.0001 · Cited by 1,460
Cited by
Assessment scales in stroke: clinimetric and clinical considerations
Quinn, T., Harrison, & McArthur (2013) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s32405 · Cited by 294
Self-citationLopes, T. J. A., Ferrari, D., Ioannidis, J., Simic, M., Mícolis de Azevedo, F., & Pappas, E. (2018) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.8006 · Cited by 48
Predictors of post-traumatic growth in stroke survivors
Kelly, G., Morris, R., & Shetty, H. (2018) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1363300 · Cited by 43
Crowley, D., & Andrews, L. (2018) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2017.1348478 · Cited by 19
Guo, Y. E., Togher, L., Power, E., Heard, R., Luo, N., Yap, P., & Koh, G. C. H. (2017) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2016.1261269 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Duffy, L., Gajree, S., Langhorne, P., Stott, D. J., & Quinn, T. J.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 462-468
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2026856125
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 34
- FWCI
- 17.29
- 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: Reliability (Inter-rater Agreement) of the Barthel Index for Assessment of Stroke Survivors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/strokeaha.112.678615
- The paper
- Duffy, L., Gajree, S., Langhorne, P., Stott, D. J., & Quinn, T. J. (2013). Reliability (Inter-rater Agreement) of the Barthel Index for Assessment of Stroke Survivors: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.112.678615
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.