Pożarowszczyk Natalia A, Kurkowska-Jastrzębska Iwona, Sarzyńska-Długosz Iwona M, Nowak Maciej, Karliński Michał
2 Department of Neurology, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland.
Neurological Rehabilitation Ward, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland.
Postep Psychiatr Neurol. 2025 Mar;34(1):19-25. doi: 10.5114/ppn.2025.149879. Epub 2025 Apr 30.
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).
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.
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 ( = 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.
The reliability of mRS scoring in everyday practice is modest and does not seem to depend on clinical background of assessing physician.
改良Rankin量表(mRS)是在临床试验和日常实践中衡量卒中相关残疾的金标准。然而,观察者间的变异性是一种偏差来源,可能会削弱回顾性研究的可靠性。它还可能取决于不同评估医师的临床背景。我们的目的是前瞻性评估在从卒中单元(SU)直接转入康复病房(RW)的患者中,卒中单元医师(SUPs)和物理与康复医学医师(PRMPs)使用mRS评估的实际一致性。
我们纳入了48名同意参与研究的卒中患者,这些患者在同一家医院内从SU转入RW。在转科当天,由一名SUP和一名PRMP按照标准护理流程对患者进行mRS评分。参考mRS评分(REF)由一名单盲卒中医师使用Rankin重点评估表指导访谈获得。
对所有入住RW的患者以及33名从SU出院的患者均进行了mRS评分。SUPs和PRMPs评估之间的总体一致性为75.8%(κ = 0.58),SUPs与REF之间为72.7%(κ = 0.55),PRMPs与REF之间为70.0%(κ = 0.49)。在48例患者的敏感性队列中,PRMPs与REF之间也观察到类似的一致性(66.7%;κ = 0.46)。REF mRS评分为2(n = 6)的患者,SUPs(4/6)和PRMPs(5/6)通常都将其评为3分。在REF mRS评分为3或4的患者中,没有明显的高估残疾程度的倾向。
mRS评分在日常实践中的可靠性一般,且似乎不取决于评估医师的临床背景。