ArticlePostepy psychiatrii neurologii2025
The real-life reliability of the modified Rankin scale used in a stroke unit and a rehabilitation ward.
Article in Postepy psychiatrii neurologii, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Cardiovascular Risk Burden with Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Functional Performance in Patients with Post-Stroke Spasticity: A Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- [Personalized lower-limb gait assessment method based on musculoskeletal modeling and machine learning].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026Article
- Interventions for Neural Plasticity in Stroke Recovery.Archives of internal medicine research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The modified Rankin scale (mRS) is the gold standard for measuring stroke-related disability in clinical trials and everyday practice. However, inter-observer variability is a source of bias that may undermine the reliability of retrospective studies. It may also depend on clinical backgrounds of different assessing physician. Our aim was to prospectively assess real-life consistency between stroke unit physicians (SUPs) and physical and rehabilitation medicine physicians (PRMPs) using mRS in patients transferred directly from a stroke unit (SU) to a rehabilitation ward (RW). Methods: We enrolled 48 consented stroke patients transferred within the same hospital from SU to RW. Patients were scored in mRS by a SUP and a PRMP at the day of transfer as a standard of care. The reference mRS score (REF) was obtained by a single- blinded stroke physician using the Rankin Focused Assessment form to guide an interview. Results: An mRS score was reported for all patients admitted to the RW and 33 patients discharged from the SU. The overall agreement was 75.8% between the assessments of SUPs and PRMPs (κ = 0.58), 72.7% between SUPs and the REF (κ = 0.55) and 70.0% between PRMPs and the REF (κ = 0.49). A similar agreement was observed for PRMPs and the REF in the sensitivity cohort of 48 patients (66.7%; κ = 0.46). Patients with the REF mRS of 2 ( Conclusions: The reliability of mRS scoring in everyday practice is modest and does not seem to depend on clinical background of assessing physician.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.