Deans' stroke musings: Abstract TP152: Correlation of NIH Stroke Scale and Fugl-Meyer Motor Scales in a Longitudinal Stroke Recovery Study: Implication for Feasibility Survey for Stroke Rehabilitation Trial

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Abstract TP152: Correlation of NIH Stroke Scale and Fugl-Meyer Motor Scales in a Longitudinal Stroke Recovery Study: Implication for Feasibility Survey for Stroke Rehabilitation Trial

And why are we using NIHSS for anything to do with stroke? I don't care that it has been used since 1983, is it 100% accurate? Appeal to authority and appeal to antiquity are not valid scientific reasons to keep using this.

Using Fugl-Meyer for comparison seems useless since it is totally subjective and has limited discrimination.

The NIH Stroke Scale Has Limited Utility in Accurate Daily Monitoring of Neurologic Status

The Utility of Quantifiable Neurologic Assessments After Stroke In response to Marsh et al, “The NIH Stroke Scale Has Limited Utility in Accurate Daily Monitoring of Neurologic Status”

The bad research here:

Abstract TP152: Correlation of NIH Stroke Scale and Fugl-Meyer Motor Scales in a Longitudinal Stroke Recovery Study: Implication for Feasibility Survey for Stroke Rehabilitation Trial

Pratik Chhatbar, Hernan Bayona, Gottfried Schlaug,

Stroke. 2017;48:ATP152

Abstract

Introduction: Recruitments of stroke recovery trials have been challenging. NIH stroke scale (NIHSS) has been universally collected in the acute stroke phase, but stroke recovery trials generally use Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale (FMMS) for outcome measure as well as patient selection criteria. The knowledge gap on the relationship between the two scales potentially jeopardize the accuracy of clinical trial recruitment feasibility survey that is based on NIHSS in the acute phase. We aimed to investigate the correlation between the two scales in a longitudinal stroke recovery study.

Methods: This is a prospective cohort study (Prediction and Imaging biomarker of Post-stroke Motor Recovery) that enrolled patients with first-ever acute ischemic stroke with various degrees of motor impairment. NIHSS and FMMS were assessed 2-7 days after onset of stroke symptoms as well as at 90 days (± 15 days) post-stroke. Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), Stroke Impact Scale-16 (SIS-16) and Personal Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) were collected at 90 days (±15 days). Correlation analysis were conducted with Pearson Correlation coefficient.

Results: 119 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. NIH Arm scales of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 correspond to FM-UE scales at 3 months of 61.1, 59.8, 58.0, 47.3 and 17.0. NIH leg scales of 1, 2, 3 and 4 correspond to FM_LE scales at 3 months of 32.4, 29.8, 27.8, 21.0 and 17.2. The correlation coefficient between of two leg scales is not as good as the two arm scales. (0.76 vs. 0.83). Similarly, mRS of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 correspond to FMMS of 99.0, 91.6, 85.5, 51.6, 41.5, 21.6 and SIS-16 of 73.7, 69.6, 64.7, 55.1, 42.8, 25.3.

Conclusions: Our data suggest that there is a strong correlation pattern between the NIH arm scale and FM-UE scale, NIH leg scale and FM-LE scale as well as mRS, FMMS, NIHSS and SIS-16. This information is potentially useful to inform the feasibility assessment for future stroke rehabilitation trials done through the NIH Stroke Trials Network.