Postępy Psychiatrii i Neurologii
eISSN: 2720-5371
ISSN: 1230-2813
Advances in Psychiatry and Neurology/Postępy Psychiatrii i Neurologii
Bieżący numer Archiwum Artykuły zaakceptowane O czasopiśmie Rada naukowa Recenzenci Bazy indeksacyjne Prenumerata Kontakt Zasady publikacji prac Opłaty publikacyjne Standardy etyczne i procedury
Panel Redakcyjny
Zgłaszanie i recenzowanie prac online
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
1/2025
vol. 34
 
Poleć ten artykuł:
Udostępnij:
streszczenie artykułu:
Artykuł oryginalny

The real-life reliability of the modified Rankin scale used in a stroke unit and a rehabilitation ward

Natalia A. Pożarowszczyk
1
,
Iwona Kurkowska-Jastrzębska
1
,
Iwona M. Sarzyńska-Długosz
2
,
Maciej Nowak
1
,
Michał Karliński
1

  1. 2nd Department of Neurology, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland
  2. Neurological Rehabilitation Ward, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland
Adv Psychiatry Neurol 2025; 34 (1): 19-25
Data publikacji online: 2025/04/30
Pełna treść artykułu Pobierz cytowanie
 
Metryki PlumX:


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 (n = 6) were often scored as 3 both by SUPs (4/6) and PRMPs (5/6). In patients with the REF mRS of 3 or 4 there was no clear tendency towards overrating disability.

Conclusions:
The reliability of mRS scoring in everyday practice is modest and does not seem to depend on clinical background of assessing physician.

© 2025 Termedia Sp. z o.o.
Developed by Bentus.