Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35222236›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022

Functional Independence and Disability Evaluation in Stroke Patients: Optimal Cutoff Scores for a Pictorial-Based Longshi Scale, Barthel Index, and Modified Rankin Scale.

Xiangxiang Liu, Mingchao Zhou, Jingpu Zhao, Yan Gao, Yao Wang, Jing Zhou, Li Wan, Guohui Nie, Yulong Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Xiangxiang LiuDepartment of Rehabilitation, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Mingchao ZhouDepartment of Rehabilitation, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Jingpu ZhaoDepartment of Rehabilitation, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Yan GaoDepartment of Rehabilitation, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Yao WangDepartment of Rehabilitation, Shenzhen Dapeng New District Nan'ao People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Jing ZhouDepartment of Rehabilitation, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Li WanDepartment of Rehabilitation, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Guohui NieDepartment of Rehabilitation, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Yulong WangDepartment of Rehabilitation, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Barthel Index (BI) are widely used to measure functional outcomes worldwide. The Longshi Scale (LS), a novel pictorial-based instrument, was designed to improve the simplicity and convenience of measuring functional outcomes in the Chinese context. However, the disagreements in functional outcomes assessed by the mRS, BI, and LS are misleading, particularly in stroke patients. This study aimed to identify the optimal cutoff scores of LS and BI according to the mRS in Chinese stroke patients with different levels of functional disability.

methodsThe mRS, BI, and LS were applied to evaluate functional independence and disability in 7364 stroke patients in a multi-center cross-sectional study. Stroke patients were categorized into bedridden, domestic, and community groups in advance using the LS, indicating severe, moderate, and mild functional disability, respectively. The optimal cut-off scores of the LS and BI according to the mRS were identified via sensitivity, specificity, and Youden's index and stratified by different levels of functional disability determined by LS. We also plotted the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves of sensitivity and specificity and determined the area under the curve (AUC).

resultsIn the bedridden group, LS and BI cutoff scores with the highest Youden's index were 5 and 10 for mRS 4, and the AUCs for the ROC curve were 0.848 and 0.863 for mRS 4. In the domestic group, LS and BI cutoff scores with the highest Youden's index were 5 and 65 for mRS 3, and the AUCs for the ROC curve were 0.796 and 0.826 for mRS 3. In the community group, LS cutoff scores with the highest sum of sensitivity and specificity were 9, 9, and 8 for mRS grades 0, 1, and 2, respectively, while the BI cutoff scores with the highest sum of sensitivity and specificity were 100, 100, and 95, respectively, while the AUCs for the ROC curve were 0.697 and 0.735 for mRS 2, 0.694 and 0.716 for mRS 1, and 0.628, and 0.660 for mRS 0.

conclusionsThe mRS is more precise to determine mild functional disability, whereas BI can provide more specific information on moderate and severe levels in stroke patients. Although LS was a less precise was to determine moderate and severe levels than BI, it is much simpler and more convenient to be applied to a large-scale population.

Indexed as

activities of daily livingBarthel Indexdisability assessmentfunctional independenceLongshi Scalemodified Rankin Scalestroke

Identifiers

PMID35222236
PMCPMC8866832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.