Diagnostic accuracy of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) to estimate disability after stroke

References

• Ustun TB, Kostanjesec N, Chatterji S. RJ, editors. Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO disability assessment schedule WHODAS 2.0. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Tarvonen-Schröder S, Hurme S, Laimi K. The world health organization disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0) and the WHO minimal generic set of domains of functioning and health versus conventional instruments in subacute stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2019;51(9):675–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlote A, Richter M, Wunderlich MT, et al. WHODAS II with people after stroke and their relatives. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31(11):855–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federici S, Bracalenti M, Meloni F, et al. World health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: an international systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(23):2347–2380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlote A, Richter M, Wunderlich MT, et al. Use of the WHODAS II with stroke patients and their relatives: reliability and inter-rater-reliability. Rehabilitation. 2008;47(1):31–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arowoiya AI, Elloker T, Karachi F, et al. Using the world health organization’s disability assessment schedule (2) to assess disability in community-dwelling stroke patients. South African J Physiother. 2017;73(1):343.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jen H-J, Kao C-M, Chang K-H, et al. Assessment of functioning using the WHODAS 2.0 among people with stroke in Taiwan: a 4-year follow-up study. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2021;64(6):101442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu H-Y, Chi W-C, Chang K-H, et al. The world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 can predict the institutionalization of patients with stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;53(6):856–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarvonen-schr S. Utility of the world health organization disability assessment scale short version and the WHO minimal generic data set covering functioning and health in assessing discharge disposition after sub-acute stroke rehabilitation. Res Reports Med. 2021;3(1):1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Liu F, Tsang RC, Zhou J, et al. Relationship of barthel index and its short form with the modified rankin scale in acute stroke patients. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020;29(9):105033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SY, Kim DY, Sohn MK, et al. Determining the cut-off score for the modified Barthel Index and the modified Rankin Scale for assessment of functional independence and residual disability after stroke. PLOS One. 2020;15(1):e0226324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castro SS, Ferreira AF, Sampaio EGM, et al. What is the most appropriate way to analyse the WHODAS 2.0 score? PPR. 2021;42(1):35–41.
   Google Scholar
• Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, STARD Group, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2015;61(12):1446–1452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajian-Tilaki K. Sample size estimation in diagnostic test studies of biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform. 2014;48:193–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller EL, Murray L, Richards L, American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing and the Stroke Council, et al. Comprehensive overview of nursing and interdisciplinary rehabilitation care of the stroke patient: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2010;41(10):2402–2448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertolucci PHF, Brucki SMD, Campacci SR, et al. O Mini-Exame do estado mental em uma população geral: impacto da escolaridade. Arq Neuro-Psiquiatr. 1994;52(1):01–07.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castro SS, Leite CF. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule – WHODAS 2.0. Fisioter Pesqui. 2017;24(4):385–391.
   Google Scholar
• Guimarães RB, Guimarães RB. Validação e adaptação cultural Para a língua Portuguesa de escalas de avaliação funcional em doenças cerebrovasculares: uma tentativa de padronização e melhora da qualidade de vida TT [Brazilian Versions of Stroke Scales and Clinical Assessment Tools: A]. Rev Bras Neurol. 2004;40(3):5–13.
   Google Scholar
• Castro S, Leite CF, Coenen M, et al. The world health organization disability assessment schedule 2 (WHODAS 2.0): remarks on the need to revise the WHODAS. Cad Saude Publica. 2019;35(7):1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Haan R, Limburg M, Bossuyt P, et al. The clinical meaning of rankin “ 'handicap' grades after stroke”. Stroke. 1995;26(11):2027–2030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Caneda MAG, Fernandes JG, De Almeida AG, et al. Reliability of Neurological Assessment Scales in patients with stroke. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2006;64(3A):690–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• New PW, Buchbinder R. Critical appraisal and review of the Rankin Scale and its derivatives. Neuroepidemiology. 2006;26(1):4–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dancey CP, Reidy J. Estatística Sem Matemática Para Psicologia: Usando SPSS Para Windows. 3rd ed. Porto Alegre; Artmed; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Roc S, Under TA, Roc T. ROC curve analysis [Published 1993; cited 2022 Apr 28]. Available from: https://www.medcalc.org/manual/roc-curves.php
   Google Scholar
• Schisterman EF, Faraggi D, Reiser B, et al. Statistical inference for the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the presence of random measurement error. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154(2):174–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ustün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, WHO/NIH Joint Project, et al. Developing the world health organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(11):815–823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar