Toward Future Research

  • Meigen Liu
  • Shigenobu Ishigami


Stroke is the number-one disability group with regard to patient numbers and the impact upon health care systems. To improve our management skills and the quality of rehabilitation programs, we need to evaluate our patients objectively and predict their functional outcomes as early and as accurately as possible. In this chapter, the methodological problems related to stroke outcome research and directions for the future are discussed. We need to develop a valid and reliable set of standardized measures of stroke pathology, comorbidity, impairment, disability, handicap, and life satisfaction that could be uniformly and internationally used. Future studies should follow well-designed and standardized protocols including patient selection, measures used, acquisition, management, and analysis of data so that different studies could be compared and conclusions generalized. In addition, international cooperative research would provide us with an unique opportunity to acquire further insight into the problems related to stroke rehabilitation, and refinement of the methodology in this area is needed.


Life Satisfaction Functional Independence Measure American Spinal Injury Association Medical Rehabilitation Functional Independence Measure Score 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (1980) International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicap. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, et al (1987) A uniform national data system for medical rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ (ed) Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurement. Brookers, Baltimore, pp 115–150Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Granger CV, Hamilton BB (1992) The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1992. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 73:51–55Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Granger CV, Hamilton BB (1993) The uniform data system for medical rehabilitation report of first admissions for 1991. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 72:33–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Spinal Injury Association standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury (1992) American Spinal Injury Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Heart Association (1991) Heart and stroke facts. American Heart Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine (1994) The white paper of rehabilitation— toward the 21st century, 2nd edn. Ishiyaku, Tokyo, pp 240-243Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jongbloed L (1986) Prediction of function after stroke: a critical review. Stroke 17:765–776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dombovy ML, Aandok BA, Basford JR (196) Rehabilitation for stroke: a review. Stroke 17:363-369Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Task Force on Stroke Impairment, Stroke Disability, and Stroke Handicap (1990) Symposium recommendations for methodology in stroke outcome research. Stroke 21(suppl 2):68–73Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maklan CW, Greene R, Cummings MA (1993) Methodological challenges and innovations in patient outcomes research. Med Care 32(suppl):13–21Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fowler FJ, Cleary PD, Magaziner J, Patrick DL, Benjamin KL (1994) Methodological issues in measuring patient-reported outcomes: the agenda of the work group on outcomes assessment. Med Care 32(suppl):65–76Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnston MV, Keith RA (1993) Measurement standards for medical rehabilitation and clinical applications. Phys Med Clin North Am 4:417–449Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silverstein B, Fisher WP, Kilgore KM, Harley JP, Harvey RF (1992) Applying psychometric criteria to functional assessment in medical rehabilitation: II. Defining interval measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 73:507–518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilkin D, Hallam L, Doggett M-A (1992) Measures of need and outcome for primary health care. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wright BD, Masters GN (1982) Rating scale analysis. MESA Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kilgore KM, Fisher WP, Silverstein B, Harley JP, Harvey RF (1993) Application of Rasch analysis to the patient evaluation and conference system. Phys Med Clin North Am 4:493–515Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wade DT (1992) Measurement in neurological rehabilitation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kinkel WR (1990) Classification of stroke by neuroimaging technique. Stroke 21 (suppl 2):7–8Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kinkel WR (1983) Computerized tomography in clinical neurology. In: Baker AB (ed) Clinical neurology. Philadelphia, Harper and Row, pp 1–115Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kinkel PR (1987) Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging in clinical neurology. In: Baker AB (ed) Clinical neurology. Philadelphia, Harper and Row, pp 1–68Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chino N, Sonoda S, Domen K, Saitoh E, Kimura A (1996) Stroke impairment assessment set (SIAS). In: Chino M, Melvin JL (eds) Functional evaluation of stroke patients. Springer, Tokyo, pp 19–31Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Demeurisse G, Demol O, Robaye E (1980) Motor evaluation in vascular hemiplegia. Eur Neurol 19:382–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bohannon RW, Smith MB (1987) Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther 67:206–207PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tsuji T, Sonoda S, Domen K, Chino N (1994) The ADL structure of stroke patients in Japan; using functional independence measure. In: 7th World Congress of the International Rehabilitation Medicine Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whiteneck GG, Charlifue SW, Gerhart KA, Overholser JD, Richardson GN (1992) Quantifying handicap: a new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 73:519–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36 Item Short Form Health Survey. 1. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neugarten BL, Havighurst RJ, Tobin SS (1961) The measurement of life satisfaction. J Gerontol 16:134–143PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cronbach LJ, Furby L (1970) How we should measure “change”—or should we? Psychol Bull 74:68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Falconer KA, Naughton BJ, Dunlop DD, Roth EJ, Strasser DC, Sinacore JM (1994) Predicting stroke inpatient rehabilitation outcome using a classification tree approach. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 75:619–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stineman MG, Escarce JJ, Goin JE, Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Williams SV (1994) A casemix classification system for medical rehabilitation. Med Care 32:366–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Data Management Service of the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation and the Center for Functional Assessment Research (1994) Guide for use of the uniform data set for medical rehabilitation, version 4. State University of New York, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wyatt JC, Altman DG, Heathfield HA, Pantin CFA (1994) Development of Design-Trial, a knowledge-based critiquing system for authors of clinical trial protocols. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 43:283–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Armitage P, Berry G (1994) Statistical methods in medical research. 3rd edn. Blackwell, London, pp 178–181Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hayashi C (1950) On the quantification of phenomena from qualitative data from mathematico-statistical point of view. Ann Inst Stat Mat:3:69–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haga T (1984) Conversational data analysis system (in Japanese). Appl Stat 13:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Domen K, Chino N, Sonoda S, Saitoh E, Kimura A (1991) Stroke impairment assessment set (SIAS)—a preliminary report. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 72:770Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kleinbaum DG (1994) Logistic regression. A self-learning text. In: Dietz K, Gail M, Krickeberg K, Singer B (eds) Statistics in the health sciences. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth International Group, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    CART (1984) California Statistical Software, Lafayette, CAGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Efron B, Tibshirani R (1991) Statistical data analysis in the computer age. Science 253:390–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lubinsky D (1994) Algorithmic speedups in growing classification trees by using an additive split criterion. In: Cheeseman P, Oldford RW (eds) Selecting models from data. Artificial intelligence and statistics 4. Lecture notes in statistics, vol 89. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 435–444Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lutsko JF, Kuijpers B (1994) Simulated annealing in the construction of near-optimal decision trees. In: Cheeseman P, Oldford RW (eds) Selecting models from data. Artificial intelligence and statistics 4. Lecture notes in statistics, vol 89. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 453–462Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Reding MJ (1990) A model stroke classification scheme and its use in outcome research. Stroke 21(supp12):35–37Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Armitage P, Berry G (1994) Statistical methods in medical research. 3rd edn. Blackwell, London, pp 470–472Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Patil S, Henry JW, Rubenfire M, Stein PD (1993) Neural network in the clinical diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism. Chest 104:1685–1689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tu VJ, Guerriere MRJ (1993) Use of a neural network as a predictive instrument for length of stay in the intensive care unit following cardiac surgery. Comput Biomed Res 26:220–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Holzreiter SH, Kohle ME (1993) Assessment of gait patterns using neural networks. J Biomech 26:645–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rosenbaum DA, Engelbrecht SE, Bushe MM, Loukopoulos LD (1993) A model for reaching control. Acta Psychol (Amst) 82:237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sonoda S, Saitoh E, Tujiuchi K, Suzuki M, Domen K, Naoich C (1994) Application of neural net for outcome prediction in stroke patients. Presented at the 77th Kanto Rehabilitation Medicine Conference, YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chino N, Anderson TP, Granger CV (1988) Stroke rehabilitation outcome studies: comparison of Japanese facility with 17 U.S. facilities. Int Disabil Stud 10:150–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chino N (1990) Efficacy of Barthel index in evaluating activities of daily living in Japan, the United States and United Kingdom. Stroke 21:64–65Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Granger C, Aude M, Chino N, Fleury J, Frommelt P, Grimby G, Hagedoorn A, Hunter J, Lains J, Leszczynski J, Marossezky J, Minaire P, Tesio L (1994) Toward worldwide uniformity in functional assessment. In: 7th World Congress of the International Rehabilitation Medicine Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Anderson GF, Alonso J, Kohn LT, Black C (1994) Analyzing health outcomes through international comparison. Med Care 32:526–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meigen Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shigenobu Ishigami
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Rehabilitation MedicineSaitama Prefecture General Rehabilitation CenterAgeo City, Saitama 361Japan
  2. 2.Department of Rehabilitation MedicineKeio University School of MedicineShinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 160Japan
  3. 3.Department of Rehabilitation MedicineNational Defense Medical CollegeTokorozawa City, Saitama 359Japan

Personalised recommendations