Wu Lingsha, Jin Haiqin
The Second Hospital of Jiaxing, Jiaxing, China.
Front Neurol. 2024 Sep 10;15:1411472. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1411472. eCollection 2024.
This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and measurement attribute quality of the post-stroke fatigue measurement scale, so as to provide some basis for the clinical application and promotion of related scales.
The Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, the China Science and Technology Journal Database, the Chinese Medical Journal Full-text Database, the Chinese Biology Medicine, PubMed, Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, the Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched for literature on the post-stroke fatigue measurement scale up to June 2022. Literature screening and data extraction were carried out independently by two researchers, and in the case of disagreement, discussions were held with a third investigator to reach an agreement, and the COSMIN checklist and criteria were used to systematically evaluate the attributes of the measurement scale.
A total of 17 studies were included, involving 10 post-stroke fatigue measurement scales. The content validity of FSS-7, FACIT-F, NRS-FRS, and MFI-20 was "not mentioned," and the remaining scales were "uncertain." In terms of construct validity, MFS was "adequate"; FSS-7, FACIT-F, and NRS-FRS were "not mentioned"; and the remaining scales were "uncertain." In terms of internal consistency, NRS-FRS was "not mentioned"; FSS and MFS were "adequate"; and the remaining scales were "uncertain." In terms of hypothesis testing, CIS and FACIT-F were "not mentioned," NRS-FRS was "adequate," and the remaining scales were "uncertain." The stability of FSS-7, CIS, FACIT-F, and MFI-20 was "not mentioned," and the remaining scales were "adequate." The cross-cultural validity of FSS-7 was "adequate," and the remaining scales were "not mentioned." All 10 scales were given a recommendation grade of "B".
For the time being, the FSS can be recommended to measure post-stroke fatigue, but it still needs to be tested for more relevant measurement properties in order to gain more support from high-quality evidence. For a more comprehensive assessment of post-stroke fatigue, the FIS, FAS, and NFI-stroke should perhaps be considered, as the FSS is a one-dimensional scale that can only measure physical fatigue in patients; however, these scales also need to be tested for more relevant measurement properties to verify their clinical applicability.
本研究旨在评估脑卒中后疲劳测量量表的方法学质量和测量属性质量，为相关量表的临床应用和推广提供一定依据。
检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、维普资讯网、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国医学期刊全文数据库、PubMed、Embase、Medline、考克兰图书馆、Web of Science、CINAHL和PsycINFO数据库，收集截至2022年6月的关于脑卒中后疲劳测量量表的文献。由两名研究人员独立进行文献筛选和数据提取，如有分歧，则与第三名研究人员进行讨论以达成共识，并使用COSMIN清单和标准对测量量表的属性进行系统评价。
共纳入17项研究，涉及10种脑卒中后疲劳测量量表。FSS-7、FACIT-F、NRS-FRS和MFI-20的内容效度为“未提及”，其余量表为“不确定”。在结构效度方面，MFS为“充分”；FSS-7、FACIT-F和NRS-FRS为“未提及”；其余量表为“不确定”。在内部一致性方面，NRS-FRS为“未提及”；FSS和MFS为“充分”；其余量表为“不确定”。在假设检验方面，CIS和FACIT-F为“未提及”，NRS-FRS为“充分”，其余量表为“不确定”。FSS-7、CIS、FACIT-F和MFI-20的稳定性为“未提及”，其余量表为“充分”。FSS-7的跨文化效度为“充分”，其余量表为“未提及”。所有10种量表的推荐等级均为“B”。
目前，可推荐使用FSS来测量脑卒中后疲劳，但仍需对其更多相关测量属性进行测试，以获得更多高质量证据的支持。为了更全面地评估脑卒中后疲劳，或许应考虑使用FIS、FAS和NFI-stroke，因为FSS是一个单维度量表，只能测量患者的身体疲劳；然而，这些量表也需要对更多相关测量属性进行测试，以验证其临床适用性。
