Journal of Neurology

, Volume 255, Issue 6, pp 867–874 | Cite as

What should be defined as good outcome in stroke trials; a modified Rankin score of 0–1 or 0–2?

  • N. Weisscher
  • M. Vermeulen
  • Y. B. Roos
  • R. J. de Haan
ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION

Abstract

Background and purpose

Good outcome in stroke trials has been defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRs) score of 0–1 or 0–2. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical meaning of these two dichotomies.

Methods

We studied 152 patients six months post stroke using the mRs and a new disability measure the AMC Linear Disability Scale (ALDS) item bank. Descriptive statistics were used to show the ALDS scores by the levels of the mRs. To investigate the clinical meaning of the different definitions of good outcome, the mean probability to perform activities of daily life (ADL) of all mRs grades and these two dichotomies was calculated.

Results

The ability to perform difficult ALDS items declined gradually with increasing mRs grade. When favourable outcome is defined as mRs 0–1, 15 % of the cohort has a good outcome; of these patients 84 % were likely to perform outdoor activities. If good outcome is defined as mRs 0–2, the percentage of patients with good outcome increased to 37 %, whereas 66 % of these patients were likely to perform outdoor activities.

Conclusion

If good outcome is defined as the ability to perform outdoor activities mRs 0–1 should be chosen. If complex ADL are considered as good outcome mRs 0–2 is the outcome measure of choice. Independent of which outcome measure is chosen, the treatment effect in clinical trials must be large before good outcome is achieved. Therefore, it is likely that clinically important treatment effects can be missed in clinical trials with both these mRs endpoints.

Key words

clinimetric disability outcome assessment stroke 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J (1999) Use of the Barthel index and modified Rankin scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke 30:1538–1541PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weimar C, Kurth T, Kraywinkel K, Wagner M, Busse O, Haberl RL, Diener HC (2002) Assessment of functioning and disability after ischemic stroke. Stroke 33:2053–2059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wade DT, Collin C (1988) The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Disabil Stud 10:64–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J (1988) Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 19:604–607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonita R, Beaglehole R (1988) Modification of Rankin Scale: Recovery of motor function after stroke. Stroke 19:1497–1500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roberts L, Counsell C (1998) Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke 29:986–991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Young FB, Lees KR, Weir CJ (2003) Strengthening acute stroke trials through optimal use of disability end points. Stroke 34:2676–2680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broderick JP, Lu M, Kothari R, Levine SR, Lyden PD, Haley EC, Brott TG, Grotta J, Tilley BC, Marler JR, Frankel M (2000) Finding the most powerful measures of the effectiveness of tissue plasminogen activator in the NINDS tPA stroke trial. Stroke 31:2335–2341PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hacke W, Kaste M, Fieschi C, von Kummer R, Davalos A, Meier D, Larrue V, Bluhmki E, Davis S, Donnan G, Schneider D, ez-Tejedor E, Trouillas P (1998) Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of thrombolytic therapy with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke (ECASS II). The Lancet 352:1245–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson JTL, Hareendran A, Hendry A, Potter J, Bone I, Muir KW (2005) Reliability of the modified Rankin scale across multiple raters: benefits of a structured interview. Stroke 36:777–781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murray GD, Barer D, Choi S, Fernandes H, Gregson B, Lees KR, Maas AIR, Marmarou A, Mendelow AD, Steyerberg EW, Taylor GS, Teasdale GM, Weir CJ (2005) Design and analysis of phase III trials with ordered outcome scales: the concept of the sliding dichotomy. Journal of Neurotrauma 22:511–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Banks JL, Marotta CA (2007) Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale: implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature review and synthesis. Stroke 38:1091–1096PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holman R, Weisscher N, Glas CA, Dijkgraaf MGW, Vermeulen M, de Haan RJ, Lindeboom R (2005) The Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score (ALDS) item bank: item response theory analysis in a mixed patient population. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 3:83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger CP, Marler JR, Barsan WG, Biller J, Spilker J, Holleran R, Eberle R, Hertzberg V (1989) Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke 20:864–870PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adams HP Jr, Bendixen BH, Kappelle LJ, Biller J, Love BB, Gordon DL, Marsh EE, III (1993) Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke. Definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. TOAST. Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment. Stroke 24:35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holman R, Lindeboom R, Glas CAW, Vermeulen M, Haan de RJ (2003) Constructing an item bank using item response theory; The AMC Linear Disability Score Project. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 4:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindeboom R, Vermeulen M, Holman R, de Haan RJ (2003) Activities of daily living instruments: optimizing scales for neurologic assessments. Neurology 60:738–742PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holman R, Glas CAW, Lindeboom R, Zwinderman AH, Haan de RJ (2004) Practical methods for dealing with ‘not applicable’ item responses in the AMC Linear Disability Score project. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2:42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holman R, Lindeboom R, Haan de R (2004) Gender and age based differential item functioning in the AMC linear disability score project. Quality of life newsletter 32:1–4Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weisscher N, Wijbrandts CA, de Haan RJ, Glas CAW, Vermeulen M, Tak PP (2007) The Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score Item Bank: psychometric properties of a new generic disability measure in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 34:1222–1228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holman R, Glas CA, de Haan RJ (2003) Power analysis in randomized clinical trials based on item response theory. Control Clin Trials 24:390–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    du Toit Me (2003) IRT from SSI: Bilog- MG, Multilog, Parscale, Testfact. Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, ILGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saver JL (2007) Clinical impact of NXY-059 demonstrated in the SAINT I trial: derivation of number needed to treat for benefit over entire range of functional disability. Stroke 38:1515–1518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lees KR, Zivin JA, Ashwood T, Davalos A, Davis SM, Diener HC, Grotta J, Lyden P, Shuaib A, Hardemark HG, Wasiewski WW, the Stroke-Acute Ischemic NXY Treatment (SAINT) (2006) NXY-059 for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 354:588–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koziol JA, Feng AC (2006) On the analysis and interpretation of outcome measures in stroke clinical trials: lessons from the SAINT I study of NXY- 059 for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 37:2644–2647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Young FB, Lees KR, Weir CJ, for the GAIN International Trial Steering Committee and Investigators (2005) Improving trial power through use of prognosis-adjusted end points. Stroke 36:597–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tilley BC, Marler J, Geller NL, Lu M, Legler J, Brott T, Lyden P, Grotta J (1996) Use of a global test for multiple outcomes in stroke trials with application to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke t-PA Stroke Trial. Stroke 27:2136–2142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mahoney F, Barthel D (1965) Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 14:61–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jennett B, Bond M (1975) Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage; a practical scale. The Lancet 1:480–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hacke W, Bluhmki E, Steiner T, Tatlisumak T, Mahagne MH, Sacchetti ML, Meier D (1998) Dichotomized efficacy end points and global end-point analysis applied to the ECASS Intention-to-Treat Data Set : post hoc analysis of ECASS I. Stroke 29:2073–2075PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Haan R, Limburg M, Bossuyt P, van der MJ, Aaronson N (1995) The clinical meaning of Rankin ‘handicap’ grades after stroke. Stroke 26:2027–2030PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE (1983) An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing 12:166–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS (1981) The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 19:787–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    New PW, Buchbinder R (2006) Critical appraisal and review of the Rankin scale and its derivatives. Neuroepidemiology 26:4–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Weisscher
    • 1
  • M. Vermeulen
    • 1
  • Y. B. Roos
    • 1
  • R. J. de Haan
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Neurology, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dept. of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsAcademic Medical Center,University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations