Cited by 62Acute Ischemic Stroke ManagementStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Stroke impairment categories: A new way to classify the effects of stroke based on stroke-related impairments

Open access

Abstract

Objective: To create a classification system based on stroke-related impairments. Data source: All adults with stroke admitted for at least 72 hours in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from July 2013 to July 2015 extracted from the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme Analysis: Impairments were defined using the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores at admission. Common combinations of impairments were identified based on geometric coding and expert knowledge. Validity of the classification was assessed using standard descriptive statistics to report and compare patients’ characteristics, therapy received and outcomes in each group. Results: Data from 94,905 patients were extracted. The items of the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (on admission) were initially grouped into four body systems: Cognitive, Motor, Sensory and Consciousness. Seven common combinations of these impairments were identified (in order of stroke severity); Patients with Loss of Consciousness ( n = 6034, 6.4%); those with Motor + Cognitive + Sensory impairments ( n = 28,226, 29.7%); Motor + Cognitive impairments ( n = 16,967, 17.9%); Motor + Sensory impairments ( n = 9882, 10.4%); Motor Only impairments ( n = 20,471, 21.6%); Any Non-Motor impairments ( n = 7498, 7.9%); and No Impairments ( n = 5827, 6.1%). There was a gradation of age, premorbid disability, mortality and disability on discharge. People with the most and least severe categories were least likely to receive therapy, and received least therapy (−20 minutes/day of stay) compared to −35 minutes/day of stay for the moderately severe categories. Conclusions: A classification system of seven Stroke Impairment Categories has been presented.

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 · 10.1177/0269215520966473

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most neurological impairments were motor (98.33%), followed by sensory (46.66%), cognitive (26.66%), and consciousness-related (6.66%), with no significant differences between groups.

    “The neurological impairments related to stroke were also contemplated and classified according to a new classification system [17], which shows most of them had motor impairments (98.33%) followed by sensory impairments (46.66%), cognitive impairments (26.66%) and consciousness related impairments (6.66%), not showing significant differences between groups.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [5]Tyson ST Turner GF. Southampton stroke audit: assessing service quality. Br J Occup Ther 1999; 6: 227– 232.
  2. [11]Gittins M Lugo-Palacios D Vail A, et al. Delivery, dose, outcomes and resource use of stroke therapy: the SSNAPIEST observational study. HS & DR 2020; 8: 17. 32267652
  3. [20]Wiles R Pain H Buckland S, et al. Providing appropriate information to patients and carers. J Adv Nurs 1998; 28(4): 794– 801. 9829668

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gittins, M., Lugo-Palacios, D., Vail, A., Bowen, A., Paley, L., Bray, B., & Tyson, S.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Tyson, Sarah
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Published
2020-11-01
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
446-458
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
OpenAlex
W3096007863
Cited by
62
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Rehabilitation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (14/198/09)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
stroke, NIHSS, motor impairment, cognitive impairment, sensory impairment, loss of consciousness, stroke severity, inpatient therapy, mortality
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Adult, Aged, Disability Evaluation, Female, United Kingdom, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Stroke, Cognitive Dysfunction

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