4.7 Article

The Pediatric Stroke Recurrence and Recovery Questionnaire Validation in a prospective cohort

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 79, Issue 9, Pages 864-870

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318266fc9a

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NINDS
  2. Doris Duke Foundation
  3. Manitoba Institute of Child Health
  4. Dana Foundation
  5. Wolfson Family Foundation for Neurological Research
  6. NIH [NS062820]
  7. Auxilium Foundation
  8. [R01 NS072338]
  9. [R21 HD069390]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We developed the Recurrence and Recovery Questionnaire (RRQ) by converting the Pediatric Stroke Outcome Measure (PSOM) to a questionnaire for telephone interview and sought to validate the RRQ in a large cohort. Method: We analyzed parents' RRQ responses and same-day PSOM assessments for 232 children who had arterial ischemic stroke, cerebral sinovenous thrombosis, or presumed perinatal ischemic stroke. We assessed the agreement and consistency of the PSOM and RRQ, and we identified conditions that contributed to differences between the 2 measures. We tested selected factors as predictors of differences between the total PSOM and total RRQ (tPSOM and tRRQ) scores. Results: Median PSOM score was 1.5 and median RRQ score was 1.5. There was good agreement between tPSOM and tRRQ, and RRQ was a reliable estimator of PSOM at the total and component level. Preexisting neurologic deficits or chronic illnesses increased the difference between the tPSOM and tRRQ; the chronic illness effect was confirmed with univariate analysis. Conclusions: The RRQ can characterize poststroke function when a child cannot return for examination. While the RRQ is not identical to the PSOM, the 2 measures likely assess closely related aspects of recovery. The RRQ is particularly useful when assessing outcomes of large cohorts, and will be useful in performing long-term follow-up studies of pediatric stroke. Neurology (R) 2012;79:864-870

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available