Repeated Measures of Modified Rankin Scale Scores to Assess Functional Recovery From Stroke: AFFINITY Study Findings.
cerebrovascular disease
functional outcomes
modified Rankin Scale
partial proportional odds
repeated measures
stroke
Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
ISSN: 2047-9980
Titre abrégé: J Am Heart Assoc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 08 2022
16 08 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
6
8
2022
medline:
19
8
2022
entrez:
5
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background Function after acute stroke using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is usually assessed at a point in time. The analytical implications of serial mRS measurements to evaluate functional recovery over time is not completely understood. We compare repeated-measures and single-measure analyses of the mRS from a randomized clinical trial. Methods and Results Serial mRS data from AFFINITY (Assessment of Fluoxetine in Stroke Recovery), a double-blind placebo randomized clinical trial of fluoxetine following stroke (n=1280) were analyzed to identify demographic and clinical associations with functional recovery (reduction in mRS) over 12 months. Associations were identified using single-measure (day 365) and repeated-measures (days 28, 90, 180, and 365) partial proportional odds logistic regression. Ninety-five percent of participants experienced a reduction in mRS after 12 months. Functional recovery was associated with age at stroke <70 years; no prestroke history of diabetes, coronary heart disease, or ischemic stroke; prestroke history of depression, a relationship partner, living with others, independence, or paid employment; no fluoxetine intervention; ischemic stroke (compared with hemorrhagic); stroke treatment in Vietnam (compared with Australia or New Zealand); longer time since current stroke; and lower baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale & Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores. Direction of associations was largely concordant between single-measure and repeated-measures models. Association strength and variance was generally smaller in the repeated-measures model compared with the single-measure model. Conclusions Repeated-measures may improve trial precision in identifying trial associations and effects. Further repeated-measures stroke analyses are required to prove methodological value. Registration URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au; Unique identifier: ACTRN12611000774921.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35929466
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.025425
pmc: PMC9496315
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fluoxetine
01K63SUP8D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e025425Références
Stroke. 2012 Jul;43(7):1982-7
pubmed: 22569940
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Nov 12;172(20):1548-56
pubmed: 23147454
Neurology. 2007 Nov 27;69(22):2054-62
pubmed: 18040011
Eur Stroke J. 2017 Mar;2(1):3-12
pubmed: 29900405
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
J Affect Disord. 2019 Mar 15;247:45-56
pubmed: 30654265
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 29;13(1):e0185402
pubmed: 29377923
Lancet Neurol. 2020 Aug;19(8):651-660
pubmed: 32702334
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Dec 28;11(1):
pubmed: 33379391
Stroke. 2007 Mar;38(3):1091-6
pubmed: 17272767
Eur J Epidemiol. 2019 Mar;34(3):211-219
pubmed: 30840181
Circulation. 2011 Feb 22;123(7):739-49
pubmed: 21300951
Behav Neurol. 2015;2015:891651
pubmed: 26246694
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Jun 11;6(6):
pubmed: 28603141
Stroke. 2017 Jul;48(7):2007-2012
pubmed: 28626052
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Apr 1;3(4):e203767
pubmed: 32347948
Int J Stroke. 2017 Jul;12(5):539-548
pubmed: 28440112
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Sep;31(9):793-799
pubmed: 28934920
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 26;12(10):e0187050
pubmed: 29073195
Stroke. 2011 May;42(5):1482-8
pubmed: 21474812
Eur Stroke J. 2016 Dec;1(4):310-319
pubmed: 31008293
J Biopharm Stat. 2019;29(1):82-97
pubmed: 29985739
Neurology. 2012 Jun 12;78(24):1916-22
pubmed: 22649218
Stat Med. 2010 Feb 28;29(5):546-57
pubmed: 19943331
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;26(2):156-62
pubmed: 18560219
Stroke. 2000 Jun;31(6):1429-38
pubmed: 10835468
J Neurol. 2018 Apr;265(4):942-948
pubmed: 29464375
Stroke. 2007 Jun;38(6):1911-5
pubmed: 17463316
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Aug;29(8):104993
pubmed: 32689618
Front Neurol. 2017 Jun 13;8:275
pubmed: 28659859
Neurology. 2018 Nov 20;91(21):e1951-e1960
pubmed: 30341155
Stroke. 2019 Nov;50(11):3314-3322
pubmed: 31610763
Stroke. 2012 Apr;43(4):1171-8
pubmed: 22426314
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Dec 14;5(12):
pubmed: 27974292
Stroke Res Treat. 2016;2016:9482876
pubmed: 27088036
Stroke. 2002 Apr;33(4):1041-7
pubmed: 11935058
Stroke. 2015 May;46(5):1321-7
pubmed: 25858239
Stroke. 2010 May;41(5):1048-50
pubmed: 20224060
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011 May-Jun;20(3):241-6
pubmed: 20621509
Int J Stroke. 2014 Feb;9(2):226-31
pubmed: 23803174
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Jun 15;23:100415
pubmed: 32577611
Proc Biol Sci. 2021 Jan 27;288(1943):20202815
pubmed: 33499782
Neurology. 2007 May 8;68(19):1583-7
pubmed: 17485645
Eur Stroke J. 2018 Jun;3(2):165-173
pubmed: 29900414
Stroke. 2003 Dec;34(12):2861-5
pubmed: 14615613
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 20;17(24):
pubmed: 33419273
Acta Neurol Scand. 2017 Feb;135(2):161-169
pubmed: 27345529
Stroke. 2008 Nov;39(11):2975-9
pubmed: 18688002