Cited by 26Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeAcute Ischemic Stroke Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Escalas específicas de evaluación de calidad de vida en el ictus

Carod Artal, Francisco Javier·2004·Revista de Neurología

Abstract

Summary. Aims. The purpose of this study was to survey the different specific scales used for measuring the quality of life after a stroke and to compare their sensitivity with that of the traditional generic instruments. Development. Most of the studies about quality of life after strokes have employed generic measures, such as the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), the SF-36, the EuroQOL, the Well-being Scale or the Nottingham health profile. These scales allow comparisons to be made between patients with different diseases, but are less sensitive when it comes to exploring the specific effects of a particular disease, such as stroke, on the patient’s quality of life (QL) or assessing the response to a certain treatment. Some of the more noteworthy specific scales include Niemi’s quality of life scale (QLS), the Viitanen life satisfaction interview, the 30item SIP adapted for stroke, the specific stroke QLS (49 items), the Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0 (64 items), the Burden of Stroke Scale, the stroke and aphasia QLS (SAQOL-39), the Newcastle stroke-specific quality of life measure, NEWSQOL, and the QLS for young patients suffering from brain haemorrhage (54 items). Some of these scales seem to be more valid and sensitive to changes than the traditional generic instruments. Conclusions. The new disease-specific instruments allow for a qualitative change in the measurement of stroke outcomes and should be considered for use in stroke units. [REV NEUROL 2004; 39: 1052-62]

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.33588/rn.3911.2004447

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 26

Metadata

Authors
Carod Artal, F. J.
Venue
Revista de Neurología
Publisher
IMR Press
Published
2004
Volume
39
Issue
11
Pages
1052
ISSN
0210-0010 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W90132055
Cited by
26
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.34
Type
journal article
Language
es
Open access
closed
Locations
Revista de Neurología (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
Keywords
stroke, quality of life, disease-specific questionnaire, Stroke Impact Scale, Sickness Impact Profile, generic health-related quality of life instruments, SF-36, EuroQol, aphasia, brain haemorrhage

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