Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

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

Duffy, Laura, Gajree, Shelley, Langhorne, Peter, Stott, David J., Quinn, Terence J.·2013·Stroke

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/strokeaha.112.678615

Cites

34 of 34 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 34 references

Cited by

See all 271

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.