4.3 Article

The NIH Stroke Scale Can Establish Cognitive Function after Stroke

Journal

CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 7-14

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000313438

Keywords

Stroke; Cognitive impairment; Language; Neglect

Funding

  1. Swedish Brain Research Foundation
  2. Yngve Lands Memorial Foundation
  3. John and Brit Wennerstrom Foundation for Neurological Research
  4. Amlov Foundation
  5. Swedish Stroke Association Research Foundation
  6. Per Olof Ahl's Foundation for Cerebrovascular Research
  7. King Gustaf V and Queen Victoria Foundation
  8. Swedish Medical Research Council [11337]
  9. Swedish ALF/LUA [ALFGBG-11364]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Cognitive impairment is an important but underrecognised consequence of stroke. We investigated whether a subset of items from the NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) could yield valid information on cognitive status in a group of stroke patients. Methods: 149 stroke patients from the Gteborg 70+ Stroke Study were investigated after 18 months. We extracted 4 items corresponding to the NIHSS items on orientation, executive function, language and inattention. Scores on this subset of 4 NIHSS items (Cog-4) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were evaluated against a reference diagnosis of severe cognitive impairment. Results: The area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) plotted for the Cog-4 scale against the diagnosis of severe cognitive impairment was 0.78; the MMSE had a slightly better diagnostic precision, with an AUC of 0.84. Making the executive task more difficult increased the precision of the Cog-4, raising the AUC to 0.81. Conclusions: A composite score based on 4 NIHSS items is almost as good as the MMSE in detecting severe cognitive impairment. Ideally, dedicated measures of cognition should be employed as a matter of course after stroke, but in their absence, the Cog-4 subscale provides an indication of cognitive functioning. Copyright (c) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available