Estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of an Upper Extremity Recovery Measure in Subacute Stroke Patients

REFERENCES

• Richards L, Hanson C, Wellborn M, Sethi A. Driving motor recovery after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2008;15:397–411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. ScandJ Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The Fug I-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke:a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16:232–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twitchell TE. The restoration of motor function following hemiplegia in man. Brain. 1951;74:443–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunnstrom S. Motor testing procedures in hemiplegia: based on sequential recovery stages. Phys Ther. 1966;46:357–375.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lanska DJ. The historical origins of stroke rehabilitation. In: Stein J, Harvey RL, Macko RF, Winstein CJ, Zorowitz RD, eds. Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation. New York: Demos Medical Publisher; 2009:3–30.
   Google Scholar
• Make B. How can we assess outcomes of clinical trials: the MCID approach. COPD. 2007;4:191–194.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ICH. ICH-E9 Statistical principles for clinical trials 1998 http://www.ich.org/lob/media/media485.pdf1998. Accessed November 2010
   Google Scholar
• Chuang-Stein C, Kirby S, Hirsch I, Atkinson G. The role of the minimum clinically important difference and its impact on designing a trial. Pharm Stat. 2010. doi: 10.1002/pst.459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beninato M, Gill-Body KM, Salles S, Stark PC, Black-Schaffer RM, Stein J. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:32–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh WV, Wang CH, Wu SC, Chen PC, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21: 233–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, Dromerick AW. Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89: 1693–1700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganguli M, Ratcliff G, Chandra V, et al. A Hindi version of the MMSE: the development of a cognitive screening instrument for a largely illiterate rural elderly population in india. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 1995;10:367–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawner K, LaVigne J. Brunnstrom's Movement Therapy in Hemiplegia: A Neurophysiological Approach. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Dancer S, Brown AJ, Yanase LR. National Institutes of Health stroke scale reliable and valid in plain English. I Neurosci Nurs. 2009;41:2–5.
   Google Scholar
• Bobath B. Adult Hemiplegia: Evaluation and Treatment. 3rd ed. Maryland Heights, MO: Butterworth-Heinemann;1990.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt RA. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis. 4th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Kleim JA, Jones TA. Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008;51(1):S225–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taub E, Uswatte G, King DK, Morris D, Crago JE, Chatterjee A. A placebo-controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremity after stroke Stroke 2006;37(4):1045–1049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford J, Moreland J, Swanson LR, Stratford PW, Gowland C. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther. 1993;73:447–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther. 1983;63:1606–1610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks IL, Marotta CA. Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale: implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature review and synthesis. Stroke. 2007;38:1091–1096.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Grant M, et al. Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin scale. Stroke. 2002;33:2243–2246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Hendry A, Potter J, Bone I, Muir KW. Reliability of the modified Rankin scale across multiple raters: benefits of a structured interview. Stroke. 2005;36:777–781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilson JK, Sullivan KJ, Cen SY, et al. Meaningful gait speed improvement during the first 60 days poststroke: minimal clinically important difference. Phys Ther. 2010;90:196–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford P, Mayo N. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. Hamilton, ON: BC Decker; 2002:26–41.
   Google Scholar
• Ward MM, Marx AS, Barry NN. Identification of clinically important changes in health status using receiver operating characteristic curves. I Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:279–284.
   Google Scholar
• Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Web site. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?0=1043. Accessed November 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Lin KC, Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Chen CL, Jang Y, Liu JS. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:429–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong Joo L, Soon Yin T, Xu D, et al. A feasibility study using interactive commercial off-the-shelf computer gaming in upper limb rehabilitation in patients after stroke. I Rehabil Med. 2010;42:437–441.
   Google Scholar