4.3 Article

Prognostic factors in multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment in multiple sclerosis: an outcome study

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 719-724

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1191/1352458505ms1226oa

关键词

multiple sclerosis; prognostic factors; rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this outcome study was to evaluate the effectiveness and prognostic factors of inpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). We analysed 230 consecutive inpatients with MS admitted to an MS rehabilitation ward who followed an individualized, goal-oriented, multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. Every patient was submitted to a neurological examination and evaluated by means of Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), with its functional systems (FS), Barthel Index (BI) and the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI). We observed an effectiveness (percentage of potential improvement achieved during rehabilitation) of nearly 16% on 81 and 8% on RMI, corresponding to an improvement in 124 patients (54%) on BI and 113 patients (49%) on RMI. Basal EDSS (beta = -0.32, P < 0.001), cognitive status (beta = -0.15, P < 0.05) and disease duration (beta = -0.13, P < 0.05) were negatively associated with effectiveness of treatment on BI (adjusted R-2 = 0.176), whereas effectiveness on RMI was correlated only with the EDSS score (beta l = -0.34, P < 0.001, adjusted R-2 = 0.113). In the logistic regression analysis, the absence of severe sphincteric disturbances was correlated with the probability of improvement on BI that was nearly twice as high (OR =2.25, 95% CI 1.24-4.08) as that of other patients. Moreover, patients without severe cognitive deficits showed a similar probability (OR = 2.37, 95% CI 1.05-5.33) of improvement on RMI. The results of this study provide further evidence that intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation in MS is effective in the majority of MS patients and that early treatment may favour functional recovery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据