Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical Outcomes, Stroke Trials, and Cognitive Outcome

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Behavioral Consequences of Stroke

Abstract

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].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mohr JP, editor. Stroke: pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Saunders; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gillen G, editor. Stroke rehabilitation: a functional-based approach. 3rd ed. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby/Elsevier; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Umphred D, editor. Neurological rehabilitation. 5th ed. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Miller FG, Joffe S. Equipoise and the dilemma of randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:476–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Ahn C, Ahn D. Randomized clinical trials in stroke research. J Investig Med. 2010;58:277–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grieve AP, Krams M. ASTIN: a Bayesian adaptive dose-response trial in acute stroke. Clin Trials. 2005;2:340–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nelson L, editor. Neuroepidemiology: from principles to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. Int J Stroke. 2009;4:200–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roberts L, Counsell C. Assessment of clinical outcomes in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1998;29:986–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Al-Khindi T, Macdonald RL, Schweizer TA. Cognitive and functional outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2010;41:e519–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wolfe CD, Taub NA, Woodrow EJ, Burney PG. Assessment of scales of disability and handicap for stroke patients. Stroke. 1991;22:1242–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: a systematic review. Stroke. 2009;40(10):3393–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The five item Barthel index. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;71:225–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Jennett B, Bond M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain damage. Lancet. 1975;1:480–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Hall KM. Overview of functional assessment scales in brain injury rehabilitation. NeuroRehabilitation. 1992;2:98–113.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Ronne-Engström E, Enblad P, Lundström E. Outcome after spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage measured with the EQ-5D. Stroke. 2011;42(11):3284–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Quinn TJ, Langhorne P, Stott DJ. Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application. Stroke. 2011;42(4):1146–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Lai SM, Duncan PW. Evaluation of the American Heart Association Stroke Outcome Classification. Stroke. 1999;30(9):1840–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1983;12(2):166–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Segal ME, Schall RR. Determining functional/health status and its relation to disability in stroke survivors. Stroke. 1994;25:2391–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Owolabi MO. Which is more valid for stroke patients: generic or stroke-specific quality of life measures? Neuroepidemiology. 2010;34(1):8–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. McDowell I. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Tombaugh TN, McIntyre NJ. The mini-mental state examination: a comprehensive review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40(9):922–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  151. Bleecker ML, Bolla-Wilson K, Kawas C, Agnew J. Age-specific norms for the Mini-Mental State Exam. Neurology. 1988;10:1565–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  153. Appelros P. Characteristics of Mini-Mental State Examination 1 year after stroke. Acta Neurol Scand. 2005;112(2):88–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Vrdoljak D, Rumboldt M. Quality of life after stroke in Croatian patients. Coll Antropol. 2008;32(2):355–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Czechowsky D, Hill MD. Neurological outcome and quality of life after stroke due to vertebral artery dissection. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2002;13:192–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Ginsberg MD. Neuroprotection for ischemic stroke: past, present and future. Neuropharmacology. 2008;55:363–89.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  173. www.Strokecenter.org. Accessed 19 July 2012.

  174. www.clinicaltrials.gov. Accessed 19 July 2012.

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Benjamin W. Y. Lo M.D., Ph.D.(cand.), F.R.C.S.C., Julian Spears M.D., S.M. F.R.C.S.C., F.A.C.S, Tom A. Schweizer Ph.D. & R. Loch Macdonald M.D., Ph.D.

  2. Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Filip Stojic & Tom A. Schweizer Ph.D.

  3. Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Tom A. Schweizer Ph.D.

  4. Heart and Stroke Foundation, Centre for Stroke Recovery, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Tom A. Schweizer Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Benjamin W. Y. Lo M.D., Ph.D.(cand.), F.R.C.S.C.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Filip Stojic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julian Spears M.D., S.M. F.R.C.S.C., F.A.C.S
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tom A. Schweizer Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Loch Macdonald M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin W. Y. Lo M.D., Ph.D.(cand.), F.R.C.S.C. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Toronto Division of Neurosurgery, St. Michael’s Hospital Neuroscience Research Program, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Tom A. Schweizer

  2. University of Toronto Department of Surgery, St. Michael’s Hospital Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    R. Loch Macdonald

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lo, B.W.Y., Stojic, F., Spears, J., Schweizer, T.A., Macdonald, R.L. (2014). Clinical Outcomes, Stroke Trials, and Cognitive Outcome. In: Schweizer, T., Macdonald, R. (eds) The Behavioral Consequences of Stroke. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7672-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7672-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7671-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7672-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation