Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standardized Nomenclature for Modified Rankin Scale Global Disability Outcomes: Consensus Recommendations From Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable XI

Saver, Jeffrey L., Chaisinanunkul, Napasri, Campbell, Bruce C.V., Grotta, James C., Hill, Michael D., Khatri, Pooja, Landen, Jaren, Lansberg, Maarten G., Venkatasubramanian, Chitra, Albers, Gregory W., on behalf of the XIth Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable·2021·Stroke

Abstract

The modified Rankin Scale (mRS), a 7-level, clinician-reported, measure of global disability, is the most widely employed outcome scale in acute stroke trials. The scale’s original development preceded the advent of modern clinimetrics, but substantial subsequent work has been performed to enable the mRS to meet robust contemporary scale standards. Prior research and consensus recommendations have focused on modernizing 2 aspects of the mRS: operationalized assignment of scale scores and statistical analysis of scale distributions. Another important characteristic of the mRS still requiring elaboration and specification to contemporary clinimetric standards is the Naming of scale outcomes. Recent clinical trials have used a bewildering variety, often mutually contradictory, of rubrics to describe scale states. Understanding of the meaning of mRS outcomes by clinicians, patients, and other clinical trial stakeholders would be greatly enhanced by use of a harmonized, uniform set of labels for the distinctive mRS outcomes that would be used consistently across trials. This statement advances such recommended rubrics, developed by the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable collaboration using an iterative, mixed-methods process. Specific guidance is provided for health state terms (eg, Symptomatic but Nondisabled for mRS score 1; requires constant care for mRS score 5) and valence terms (eg, excellent for mRS score 1; very poor for mRS score 5) to employ for 23 distinct numeric mRS outcomes, including: all individual 7 mRS levels; all 12 positive and negative dichotomized mRS ranges, positive and negative sliding dichotomies; and utility-weighted analysis of the mRS.

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.121.034480

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 323

Metadata

Authors
Saver, J. L., Chaisinanunkul, N., Campbell, B. C. V., Grotta, J. C., Hill, M. D., Khatri, P., Landen, J., Lansberg, M. G., Venkatasubramanian, C., Albers, G. W., & Roundtable, O. B. O. T. X. S. T. A. I.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2021-09
Volume
52
Issue
9
Pages
3054-3062
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W3183660339
Cited by
323
References
4
FWCI
19.61
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: Standardized Nomenclature for Modified Rankin Scale Global Disability Outcomes: Consensus Recommendations From Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable XI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/strokeaha.121.034480
The paper
Saver, J. L., Chaisinanunkul, N., Campbell, B. C. V., Grotta, J. C., Hill, M. D., Khatri, P., Landen, J., Lansberg, M. G., Venkatasubramanian, C., Albers, G. W., & Roundtable, O. B. O. T. X. S. T. A. I. (2021). Standardized Nomenclature for Modified Rankin Scale Global Disability Outcomes: Consensus Recommendations From Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable XI. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.121.034480

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.