Clinical Outcomes, Stroke Trials, and Cognitive Outcome

  • Benjamin W. Y. LoEmail author
  • Filip Stojic
  • Julian Spears
  • Tom A. Schweizer
  • R. Loch Macdonald


Stroke as a cause of death in the United States decreased 19 % from 1998 to 2008, and death from stroke declined 35 % over the same time period [1]. This put stroke as the fourth leading cause of death; down from third, behind heart disease, cancer, and chronic lung disease. The decrease in mortality in the United States differs from the increasing incidence in low- to middle-income countries [2].


Ischemic Stroke Acute Ischemic Stroke Intracerebral Hemorrhage Carotid Endarterectomy Barthel Index 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Adams RJ, Berry JD, Brown TM, et al. American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123:e18–209.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feigin VL, Lawes CM, Bennett DA, Barker-Collo SL, Parag V. Worldwide stroke incidence and early case fatality reported in 56 population-based studies: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:355–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mohr JP, editor. Stroke: pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gillen G, editor. Stroke rehabilitation: a functional-based approach. 3rd ed. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby/Elsevier; 2011.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Umphred D, editor. Neurological rehabilitation. 5th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 2007.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosengart AJ, Huo JD, Tolentino J, Novakovic RL, Frank JI, Goldenberg FD, et al. Outcome in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage treated with antiepileptic drugs. J Neurosurg. 2007;107:253–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morgenstern LB, Hemphill JC III, Anderson C, Becker K, Broderick JP, Connolly ES Jr, et al. American Heart Association Stroke Council and Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. Guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2010;41:2108–29.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lew HL, Lee E, Date ES, Zeiner H. Influence of medical comorbidities and complications on FIM change and length of stay during in patient rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81(11):830–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller FG, Joffe S. Equipoise and the dilemma of randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:476–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guyatt G, editor. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahn C, Ahn D. Randomized clinical trials in stroke research. J Investig Med. 2010;58:277–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elkind MS, Sacco RL, MacArthur RB, Fink DJ, Peerschke E, Andrews H, et al. The Neuroprotection with Statin Therapy for Acute Recovery Trial (NeuSTART): an adaptive design phase I dose-escalation study of high-dose lovastatin in acute ischemic stroke. Int J Stroke. 2008;3:210–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grieve AP, Krams M. ASTIN: a Bayesian adaptive dose-response trial in acute stroke. Clin Trials. 2005;2:340–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Selim M, Yeatts S, Goldstein JN, Gomes J, Greenberg S, Morgenstern LB, et al.; Deferoxamine Mesylate in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Investigators. Safety and tolerability of deferoxamine mesylate in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke. 2011;42:3067–74.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelson L, editor. Neuroepidemiology: from principles to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. Int J Stroke. 2009;4:200–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lees KR, Bath PM, Schellinger PD, Kerr DM, Fulton R, Hacke W, et al.; European Stroke Organization Outcomes Working Group. Contemporary outcome measures in acute stroke research: choice of primary outcome measure. Stroke. 2012;43:1163–70.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duncan PW, Jorgensen HS, Wade DT. Outcome measures in acute stroke trials: a systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke. 2000;31:1429–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim DH, Haney CL, Van Ginhoven G. Utility of outcome measures after treatment for intracranial aneurysms: a propective trial involving 520 patients. Stroke. 2005;36:792–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roberts L, Counsell C. Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1998;29:986–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schellinger PD, Bath PM, Lees KR, Bornstein NM, Uriel E, Eisert W, et al.; European Stroke Organisation Outcomes Working Group. Assessment of additional endpoints for trials in acute stroke—what, when, where, in who? Int J Stroke. 2012;7:227–30.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Al-Khindi T, Macdonald RL, Schweizer TA. Cognitive and functional outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2010;41:e519–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolfe CD, Taub NA, Woodrow EJ, Burney PG. Assessment of scales of disability and handicap for stroke patients. Stroke. 1991;22:1242–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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;36:777–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bruno A, Shah N, Akinwuntan AE, Close B, Switzer JA. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2012 Apr 25. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 22541607.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schaefer PW, Huisman T, Sorensen G, Gonzalez RG, Schwamm LH. Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging in closed head injury: high correlation with initial Glasgow Coma Scale score and score on Modified Rankin Scale at discharge. Neuroradiology. 2004;233:58–66.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilson JT, Hareendran A, Grant M, Baird T, Schulz UG, Muir KW, et al. Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: use of a structured interview to assign grades on the Modified Rankin Scale. Stroke. 2002;33:2243–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: a systematic review. Stroke. 2009;40(10):3393–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bruno A, Shah N, Lin C, Close B, Hess DC, Davis K, et al. Improving modified Rankin Scale assessment with a simplified questionnaire. Stroke. 2010;41(5):1048–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McArthur K, Beagan ML, Degnan A, Howarth RC, Mitchell KA, McQuaige FB, et al. Properties of proxy-derived modified Rankin Scale assessment. Int J Stroke. 2012 Feb 15. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00759.x. [Epub ahead of print].
  34. 34.
    Brott TG, Adams HP, Olinger CP, Marler JR, Barsan WG, Biller J, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke. 1989;20:864–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kasner SE, Chalela JA, Luciano JM, Cucchiara BL, Raps EC, McGarvey ML, et al. Reliability and validity of estimating the NIH stroke scale score from medical records. Stroke. 1999;30(8):1534–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schiemanck SK, Post MW, Witkamp TD, Kappelle LJ, Prevo AJ. Relationship between ischemic lesion volume and functional status in the 2nd week after middle cerebral artery stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005;19:133–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Saver JL, Johnston KC, Homer D, Wityk R, Koroshetz W, Truskowski LL, et al. Infarct volume as a surrogate or auxiliary outcome measure in ischemic stroke clinical trials. Stroke. 1999;30:293–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lyden P, Claesson L, Havstad S, Ashwood T, Lu M. Factor analysis of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale in patients with large strokes. Arch Neurol. 2004;61:1677–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Derex L, Nighoghossian N, Hermier M, Adeleine P, Berthezène Y, Philippeau F, et al. Influence of pretreatment MRI parameters on clinical outcome, recanalization and infarct size in 49 stroke patients treated by intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. J Neurol Sci. 2004;225:3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fink JN, Selim MH, Kumar S, Silver B, Linfante I, Caplan LR, et al. Is the association of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores and acute magnetic resonance imaging stroke volume equal for patients with right- and left-hemisphere ischemic stroke? Stroke. 2002;33:954–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Woo D, Broderick JP, Kothari RU, Lu M, Brott T, Lyden PD, et al. Does the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale favor left hemisphere strokes? Stroke. 1999;30:2355–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dewey HM, Donnan GA, Freeman EJ, Sharples CM, Macdonell RA, McNeil JJ, et al. Interrater reliability of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: rating by neurologists and nurses in a community-based stroke incidence study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1999;9(6):323–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lyden PD, Lu M, Levine SR, Brott TG, Broderick J, NINDS rtPA Stroke Study Group. A modified National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale for use in stroke clinical trials: preliminary reliability and validity. Stroke. 2001;32(6):1310–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Meyer BC, Hemmen TM, Jackson CM, Lyden PD. Modified National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale for use in stroke clinical trials: prospective reliability and validity. Stroke. 2002;33(5):1261–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kasner SE, Cucchiara BL, McGarvey ML, Luciano JM, Liebeskind DS, Chalela JA. Modified National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale can be estimated from medical records. Stroke. 2003;34(2):568–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Muir KW, Weir CJ, Murray GD, Povey C, Lees KR. Comparison of neurological scales and scoring systems for acute stroke prognosis. Stroke. 1996;27:1817–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Clark DO, Biller J. Development of a Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale. Stroke. 1999;30:1362–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:207–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chau N, Dalter S, Andre JM, Patris A. Inter-rater agreement of two functional independence scales: the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and a subjective uniform continuous scale. Disabil Rehabil. 1994;16(2):63–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Segal ME, Ditunno JF, Staas WE. Interinstitutional agreement of individual functional independence measure (FIM) items measured at two sites on one sample of SCI patients. Paraplegia. 1993;31(10):622–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, Johnson J, Rossiter D, Petruckevitch A, et al. The functional independence measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil. 1995;17(1):10–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(12):1226–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pollak N, Rheault W, Stoecker JL. Reliability and validity of the FIM for persons aged 80 years and above from a multilevel continuing care retirement community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(10):1056–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Black TM, Soltis T, Bartlett C. Using the functional independence measure instrument to predict stroke rehabilitation outcomes. Rehabil Nurs. 1999;24(3):109–14; 121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Oczkowski WJ, Barreca S. The functional independence measure: its use to identify rehabilitation needs in stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(12):1291–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Segal ME, Gillard M, Schall R. Telephone and in-person proxy agreement between stroke patients and caregivers for the functional independence measure. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;75(3):208–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Franchignoni F, Tesio L, Martino MT, Benevolo E, Castagna M. Length of stay of stroke rehabilitation inpatients: prediction through the functional independence measure. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 1998;34(4):463–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    van der Putten JJ, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999;66:480–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The five item Barthel index. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;71:225–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dromerick AW, Edwards DF, Diringer MN. Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: a comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003;40:1–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet. 1975;1:480–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wilson JT, Pettigrew LE, Teasdale GM. Emotional and cognitive consequences of head injury in relation to the Glasgow Outcome Scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000;69(2):204–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Woischneck D, Firsching R. Efficiency of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)-Score for the long-term follow-up after severe brain injuries. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 1998;71:138–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kosty J, Macyszyn L, Lai K, McCroskery J, Park HR, Stein SC. Relating quality of life to Glasgow outcome scale health states. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29(7):1322–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wilson JT, Edwards P, Fiddes H, Stewart E, Teasdale GM. Reliability of postal questionnaires for the Glasgow Outcome Scale. J Neurotrauma. 2002;19(9):999–1005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gouvier WD, Blanton PD, Kittle KS. Reliability and validity of the Expanded Glasgow Outcome Scale and the Stover-Zieger Scale. Int J Clin Neuropsychol. 1986;8:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hall K, Cope DN, Rappaport M. Glasgow Outcome Scale and Disability Rating Scale: comparative usefulness in following recovery in traumatic head injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1985;66:35–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hall KM. Overview of functional assessment scales in brain injury rehabilitation. NeuroRehabilitation. 1992;2:98–113.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Levin HS, Boake C, Song J, Mccauley S, Contant C, Diaz-Marchan P, et al. Validity and sensitivity to change of the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale in mild to moderate traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2001;18(6):575–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Weir J, Steyerberg EW, Butcher I, Lu J, Lingsma HF, McHugh GS, et al. Does the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale add value to the conventional Glasgow Outcome Scale? J Neurotrauma. 2012;29(1):53–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wilson JT, Pettigrew LE, Teasdale GM. Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma. 1998;15(8):573–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pettigrew LE, Wilson JT, Teasdale GM. Assessing disability after head injury: improved use of the Glasgow Outcome Scale. J Neurosurg. 1998;89(6):939–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Anon. The EuroQol Group—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Is the EuroQol a valid measure of health-related quality of life after stroke? Stroke. 1997;28(10):1876–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Dorman PJ, Waddell F, Slattery J, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Are proxy assessments of health status after stroke with the EuroQol questionnaire feasible, accurate, and unbiased? Stroke. 1997;28(10):1883–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Pinto EB, Maso I, Vilela RN, Santos LC, Oliveira-Filho J. Validation of the EuroQol quality of life questionnaire on stroke victims. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2011;69(2B):320–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ronne-Engström E, Enblad P, Lundström E. Outcome after spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage measured with the EQ-5D. Stroke. 2011;42(11):3284–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke. 1998;29:63–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 1993;2(3):169–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, Herdman M. Using the EuroQol-5D in the Catalan general population: feasibility and construct validity. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:311–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care. 2000;38(1):115–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2012 Nov 25. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hsueh IP, Lee MM, Hsieh CL. Psychometric characteristics of the Barthel Activities of Daily Living index in stroke patients. J Formos Med Assoc. 2001;100(8):526–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Chang KC, Tseng MC, Weng HH, Lin YH, Liou CW, Tan TY. Prediction of length of stay of first-ever ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2002;33(1):2670–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Granger CV, Greer DS, Liset E, Coulombe J, O’Brien E. Measurement of outcomes of care for stroke patients. Stroke. 1975;6:34–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Granger CV, Albrecht GL, Hamilton BB. Outcome of comprehensive medical rehabilitation: measurement by PULSES Profile and the Barthel Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1979;60:145–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Tilling K, Sterne JA, Rudd AG, Glass TA, Wityk RJ, Wolfe CD. A new method for predicting recovery after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32:2867–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Della Pietra GL, Savio K, Oddone E, Reggiani M, Monaco F, Leone MA. Validity and reliability of the Barthel Index administered by telephone. Stroke. 2011;42(7):2077–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Korner-Bitensky N, Wood-Dauphinee S. Barthel Index information elicited over the telephone. Is it reliable? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;74(1):9–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wilkinson PR, Wolfe CD, Warburton FG, Rudd AG, Rudd AG, Howard RS, Ross-Russell RW, et al. Longer term quality of life and outcome in stroke patients: is the Barthel index alone an adequate measure of outcome? Qual Health Care. 1997;6(3):125–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Duncan PW, Samsa GP, Weinberger M, Goldstein LB, Bonito A, Witter DM, et al. Health status of individuals with mild stroke. Stroke. 1997;28(4):740–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Salbach N, Mayo N, Higgins J, Ahmed S, Finch LE, Richards CL. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:1204–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Quinn TJ, Langhorne P, Stott DJ. Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application. Stroke. 2011;42(4):1146–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Uyttenboogaart M, Stewart RE, Vroomen PC, De Keyser J, Luijckx GJ. Optimizing cutoff scores for the Barthel index and the modified Rankin scale for defining outcome in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 2005;36(9):1984–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J. Use of the Barthel index and modified Rankin scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1999;30(8):1538–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(8):703–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Glässel A, Kirchberger I, Linseisen E, Stamm T, Cieza A, Stucki G. Content validation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for stroke: the perspective of occupational therapists. Can J Occup Ther. 2010;77(5):289–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Starrost K, Geyh S, Trautwein A, Grunow J, Ceballos-Baumann A, Prosiegel M, et al. Interrater reliability of the extended ICF core set for stroke applied by physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2008;88(7):841–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0: evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Duncan PW, Bode RK, Lai SM, Perera S, Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection Americans Investigators. Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:950–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Edwards B, O’Connell B. Internal consistency and validity of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0) and SIS-16 in an Australian sample. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:1127–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Duncan PW, Lai SM, Tyler D, Perera S, Reker DM, Studenski S. Evaluation of proxy responses to the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2002;33(11):2593–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Carod-Artal FJ, Ferreira Coral L, Stieven Trizotto D, Menezes MC. Self- and proxy-report agreement on the Stroke Impact Scale. Stroke. 2009;40(10):3308–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Lin KC, Fu T, Wu CY, Hsieh YW, Chen CL, Lee PC. Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(3):435–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Duncan P, Reker D, Kwon S, Lai SM, Studenski S, Perera S, et al. Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care. 2005;43(5):507–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Kelly-Hayes M, Robertson JT, Broderick JP, Duncan PW, Hershey LA, Roth EJ, et al. The American Heart Association Stroke Outcome Classification. Stroke. 1998;29(6):1274–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Lai SM, Duncan PW. Evaluation of the American Heart Association Stroke Outcome Classification. Stroke. 1999;30(9):1840–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Gowland C, Stratford P, Ward M, Moreland J, Torresin W, Van Hullenaar S, et al. Measuring physical impairment and disability with the Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Stroke. 1993;24:58–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Crowe J, Harmer D, Sharpe D. Reliability of the Chedoke-McMaster Disability Inventory in acquired brain injury. Physiother Can. 1996;48(1):25.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford PW, Mayo NE. Physical rehabilitations outcome measures. A guide to enhanced clinical decision-making. 2nd ed. Toronto: Canadian Physiotherapy Association; 2002.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1983;12(2):166–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Tooth LR, McKenna KT, Smith M, O’Rourke P. Further evidence for the agreement between patients with stroke and their proxies on the Frenchay Activities Index. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:656–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Segal ME, Schall RR. Determining functional/health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors. Stroke. 1994;25:2391–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Schuling J, de Haan R, Limburg M, Groenier KH. The Frenchay Activities Index. Assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke. 1993;24(8):1173–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Lin KC, Chen HF, Wu CY, Yu TY, Ouyang P. Multidimensional Rasch validation of the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients receiving rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(1):58–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Appelros P. Characteristics of the Frenchay Activities Index one year after a stroke: a population-based study. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(10):785–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Carter J, Mant F, Mant J, Wade D, Winner S. Comparison of postal version of the Frenchay Activities Index with interviewer-administered version for use in people with stroke. Clin Rehabil. 1997;11(2):131–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Sveen U, Bautz-Holter E, Sødring KM, Wyller TB, Laake K. Association between impairments, self-care ability and social activities 1 year after stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21(8):372–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Wade DT, Legh-Smith J, Langton HR. Social activities after stroke: measurement and natural history using the Frenchay Activities Index. Int Rehabil Med. 1985;7(4):176–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Post MW, de Witte LP. Good inter-rater reliability of the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17(5):548–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Piercy M, Carter J, Mant J, Wade DT. Inter-rater reliability of the Frenchay activities index in patients with stroke and their careers. Clin Rehabil. 2000;14(4):433–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    van Straten A, de Haan RJ, Limburg M, Schuling J, Bossuyt PM, van den Bos GA. A stroke-adapted 30-item version of the Sickness Impact Profile to assess quality of life (SA-SIP30). Stroke. 1997;28(11):2155–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    van Straten A, de Haan RJ, Limburg M, van den Bos GA. Clinical meaning of the Stroke-Adapted Sickness Impact Profile-30 and the Sickness Impact Profile-136. Stroke. 2000;31:2610–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Buck D, Jacoby A, Massey A, Ford G. Evaluation of measures used to assess quality of life after stroke. Stroke. 2000;31(8):2004–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Almborg AH, Berg S. Quality of life among Swedish patients after stroke: psychometric evaluation of SF-36. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(1):48–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Unalan D, Soyuer F, Ozturk A. Should the Nottingham Health Profile or the Short Form-36 be given preference in stroke? Neurosciences (Riyadh). 2009;14(1):45–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Lotus Shyu YI, Lu JF, Chen ST. Psychometric testing of the SF-36 Taiwan version on older stroke patients. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(10):1451–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Hagen S, Bugge C, Alexander H. Psychometric properties of the SF-36 in the early post-stroke phase. J Adv Nurs. 2003;44(5):461–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Anderson C, Laubscher S, Burns R. Validation of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients. Stroke. 1996;27(10):1812–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Owolabi MO. Which is more valid for stroke patients: generic or stroke-specific quality of life measures? Neuroepidemiology. 2010;34(1):8–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Hobart JC, Williams LS, Moran K, Thompson AJ. Quality of life measurement after stroke: uses and abuses of the SF-36. Stroke. 2002;33(5):1348–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    McDowell I. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    House A, Dennis M, Mogridge L, Warlow C, Hawton K, Jones L. Mood disorders in the year after first stroke. Br J Psychiatry. 1991;158:83–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Svanborg P, Asberg M. A comparison between the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the self-rating version of the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). J Affect Disord. 2001;64(2–3):203–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Aben I, Verhey F, Lousberg R, Lodder J, Honig A. Validity of the beck depression inventory, hospital anxiety and depression scale, SCL-90, and Hamilton depression rating scale as screening instruments for depression in stroke patients. Psychosomatics. 2002;43(5):386–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Turner-Stokes L, Hassan N. Depression after stroke: a review of the evidence base to inform the development of an integrated care pathway. Part 1: Diagnosis, frequency and impact. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(3):231–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Berg A, Lönnqvist J, Palomäki H, Kaste M. Assessment of depression after stroke: a comparison of different screening instruments. Stroke. 2009;40(2):523–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Lincoln NB, Nicholl CR, Flannaghan T, Leonard M, Van der Gucht E. The validity of questionnaire measures for assessing depression after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17(8):840–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Grace J, Nadler JD, White DA, Guilmette TJ, Giuliano AJ, Monsch AU, et al. Folstein vs modified Mini-Mental State Examination in geriatric stroke. stability, validity, and screening utility. Arch Neurol. 1995;52(5):477–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Zwecker M, Levenkrohn S, Fleisig Y, Zeilig G, Ohry A, Adunsky A. Mini-Mental State Examination, cognitive FIM instrument, and the Loewenstein Occupational Therapy Cognitive Assessment: relation to functional outcome of stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(3):342–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Adunsky A, Fleissig Y, Levenkrohn S, Arad M, Noy S. Clock drawing task, mini-mental state examination and cognitive-functional independence measure: relation to functional outcome of stroke patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2002;35(2):153–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Appelros P, Andersson AG. Changes in Mini Mental State Examination score after stroke: lacunar infarction predicts cognitive decline. Eur J Neurol. 2006;13(5):491–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Bour A, Rasquin S, Boreas A, Limburg M, Verhey F. How predictive is the MMSE for cognitive performance after stroke? J Neurol. 2010;257(4):630–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Tombaugh TN, McIntyre NJ. The mini-mental state examination: a comprehensive review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40(9):922–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Bleecker ML, Bolla-Wilson K, Kawas C, Agnew J. Age-specific norms for the Mini-Mental State Exam. Neurology. 1988;10:1565–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Shadlen MF, Larson EB, Gibbons L, McCormick WC, Teri L. Alzheimer’s disease symptom severity in Blacks and Whites. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47:482–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Appelros P. Characteristics of Mini-Mental State Examination 1 year after stroke. Acta Neurol Scand. 2005;112(2):88–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Nys GM, van Zandvoort MJ, de Kort PL, Jansen BP, Kappelle LJ, de Haan EH. Restrictions of the Mini-Mental State Examination in acute stroke. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005;20(5):623–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Pendlebury ST, Cuthbertson FC, Welch SJ, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM. Underestimation of cognitive impairment by Mini-Mental State Examination versus the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in patients with transient ischemic attack and stroke: a population-based study. Stroke. 2010;41(6):1290–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Damian AM, Jacobson SA, Hentz JG, Belden CM, Shill HA, Sabbagh MN, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the mini-mental state examination as screening instruments for cognitive impairment: item analyses and threshold scores. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2011;31(2):126–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Toglia J, Fitzgerald KA, O’Dell MW, Mastrogiovanni AR, Lin CD. The Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in persons with mild subacute stroke: relationship to functional outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(5):792–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Larner AJ. Screening utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): in place of–or as well as–the MMSE? Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24(3):391–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Schweizer TA, Al-Khindi T, Macdonald RL. Mini-Mental State Examination versus Montreal Cognitive Assessment: rapid assessment tools for cognitive and functional outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. J Neurol Sci. 2012;316(1–2):137–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Godefroy O, Fickl A, Roussel M, Auribault C, Bugnicourt JM, Lamy C, et al. Is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination to detect poststroke cognitive impairment? A study with neuropsychological evaluation. Stroke. 2011;42(6):1712–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Freitas S, Simões MR, Alves L, Santana I. Montreal Cognitive Assessment: influence of sociodemographic and health variables. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;27(2):165–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Wong GK, Lam SW, Ngai K, Wong A, Poon WS, Mok V. Validation of the Stroke-specific Quality of Life for patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and proposed summary subscores. J Neurol Sci. 2012;320(1–2):97–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Boosman H, Passier PE, Visser-Meily JM, Rinkel GJ, Post MW. Validation of the Stroke Specific Quality of Life scale in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;81(5):485–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Hsueh IP, Jeng JS, Lee Y, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Construct validity of the stroke-specific quality of life questionnaire in ischemic stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(7):1113–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Williams LS, Redmon G, Saul DC, Weinberger M. Reliability and telephone validity of the Stroke-specific Quality of Life (SS-QOL) scale. Stroke. 2000;32:339-b.Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Chen HF, Wu CY, Lin KC, Li MW, Yu HW. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of a short version of the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale in patients receiving rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(8):629–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Post MW, Boosman H, van Zandvoort MM, Passier PE, Rinkel GJ, Visser-Meily JM. Development and validation of a short version of the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011;82(3):283–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Williams LS, Bakas T, Brizendine E, Plue L, Tu W, Hendrie H, et al. How valid are family proxy assessments of stroke patients’ health-related quality of life? Stroke. 2006;37:2081–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Vrdoljak D, Rumboldt M. Quality of life after stroke in Croatian patients. Coll Antropol. 2008;32(2):355–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Czechowsky D, Hill MD. Neurological outcome and quality of life after stroke due to vertebral artery dissection. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2002;13:192–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Ginsberg MD. Neuroprotection for ischemic stroke: past, present and future. Neuropharmacology. 2008;55:363–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173. Accessed 19 July 2012.
  174. 174. Accessed 19 July 2012.
  175. 175.
    Anon. International stroke trial collaborative group. International Stroke Trial. A randomized trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19435 patients with acute ischemic stroke. Lancet. 1997;349:1569–81.Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Pickard J, Murray G, Illingworth R, Shaw MD, Teasdale GM, Foy PM, et al. British Aneurysm Nimodipine Trial. Effect of oral nimodipine on cerebral infarction and outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage. BMJ. 1989;298:636–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Molyneux A, Kerr R, Yu L, Clarke M, Sneade M, Yarnold JA, et al. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) Collaborative Group. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomized comparison of effects on survival, dependency, seizures, rebleeding, subgroups and aneurysm occlusion. Lancet. 2005;366:809–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Scott RB, Eccles F, Molyneux AJ, Kerr RS, Rothwell PM, Carpenter K. Improved cognitive outcomes with endovascular coiling of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: neuropsychological outcomes from the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT). Stroke. 2010;41:1743–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Anon. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:445–53.Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Halliday A, Mansfield A, Marro J, Peto C, Peto R, Potter J, et al.; MRC Asymptomatic CarotidSurgery Trial (ACST) Collaborative Group. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms. Lancet. 2004;363:1491–502.Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    Anon. Carotid endarterectomy for patients with asymptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. J Neurol Sci. 1995;129:76–7.Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Anon. Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet. 1991;351:1379–87.Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Altinbas A, van Zandvoort MJ, van den Berg E, Jongen LM, Algra A, Moll FL, et al. Cognition after carotid endarterectomy or stenting: a randomized comparison. Neurology. 2011;77:1084–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Mendelow A, Gregson B, Fernandes H, Murray GD, Teasdale GM, Hope DT, et al.; STICH Investigators. Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebralhaematomas in the International Surgical Trial in Intracerebral Haemorrhage (STICH): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;365:387–97.Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Gregson BA, Broderick JP, Auer LM, Batjer H, Chen XC, Juvela S, et al. Individual patient data subgroup meta-analysis of surgery for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke. 2012;43:1496–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Lees KR, Zivin JA, Ashwood T, Davalos A, Davis SM, Diener H-C, et al.; for the Stroke–Acute Ischemic NXY Treatment (SAINT I) Trial Investigators. NXY-059 for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:588–600.Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Shuaib A, Lees KR, Lyden P, Grotta J, Davalos A, Davis SM, et al.; SAINT II Trial Investigators. NXY-059 for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:562–71.Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Jüttler E, Schwab S, Schmiedek P, Unterberg A, Hennerici M, Woitzik J, et al.; DESTINY Study Group. Decompressive surgery for the treatment of malignant infarction of the middle cerebral artery (DESTINY): a randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2007;38:2518–25.Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Vahedi K, Vicaut E, Mateo J, Kurtz A, Orabi M, Guichard JP, et al.; DECIMAL Investigators. Sequential-design, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of early decompressive Craniectomyin malignant cerebral artery infarction (DECIMAL Trial). Stroke. 2007;38:2506–17.Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    Hofmeijer J, Kappelle L, Algra A, Amelink GJ, van Gijn J, van der Worp HB, HAMLET Investigators. Surgical decompression for space-occupying cerebral infarction (the Hemicranectomy After Middle Cerebral Artery infarction with Life-threatening Edema Trial [HAMLET]): a multicentre, open randomized trial. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8(4):326–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin W. Y. Lo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Filip Stojic
    • 2
  • Julian Spears
    • 1
  • Tom A. Schweizer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • R. Loch Macdonald
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Neurosurgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Toronto, St. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge InstituteSt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Institute of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Heart and Stroke Foundation, Centre for Stroke RecoveryTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations