|CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
|Year : 2019 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 73-83
Importance and usage of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical physiotherapy practice
Deputy Manager, Physiotherapy Trainer, Health Care at Home India Pvt Ltd, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
|Date of Submission||27-Feb-2019|
|Date of Acceptance||01-Jun-2019|
|Date of Web Publication||07-Oct-2019|
Dr. Gaurav Shori
Health Care at Home India Pvt. Ltd, D8 Sector 3 Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Interest in patient-related outcome information is a prerequisite for patient-centered care, which has increasingly been recognized as an ethical imperative in modern health care. Patient-reported outcomes assess aspects of a patient's health status coming directly from the patient. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) intent to profoundly change the face of modern health-care delivery. PROMs are increasingly used by clinicians to guide and audit routine care and are already firmly embedded in clinical research. These important patient-centered measures are likely to have a growing impact on physiotherapists all over the world. Patient-reported outcome research findings will increasingly guide policymakers and clinicians in providing evidence-based treatment. In addition, the routine clinical use of PROMs may allow physiotherapists to more effectively track treatment impact, thus aiding the development of optimal management strategies. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy encourages as well as promotes at every level that physiotherapists must demonstrate measurable improvements in the clinical outcomes of their patients as part of daily practice. The use of PROMs to measure health status in routine practice has some distinct advantages over the traditional research-based outcome measures, as they may directly facilitate change behavior for patients, clinicians, managers, and policymakers. Widespread adoption of PROMs across physiotherapy is, therefore, something for the profession to embrace as it has the potential to empower patients, support clinical decision-making, and drive forward quality improvement. Thus, this article aim towards highlighting the importance and usage of PROMs in clinical physiotherapy practice.
Keywords: Clinical physiotherapy practice, health care, patient-reported outcome measures
|How to cite this article:|
Shori G. Importance and usage of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical physiotherapy practice. Physiother - J Indian Assoc Physiother 2019;13:73-83
|How to cite this URL:|
Shori G. Importance and usage of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical physiotherapy practice. Physiother - J Indian Assoc Physiother [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Apr 5];13:73-83. Available from: http://www.pjiap.org/text.asp?2019/13/2/73/274290
| What is Patient-Reported Outcome Measure?|| |
Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are defined as “any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else.”, PROMs' information can be gathered using paper-based or electronic questionnaires. Their use in clinical practice helps to ensure the patient “voice” in all aspects of care, which is essential to ensure that therapeutic management remains patient centered. PROMs capture patient's own opinions on the impact of their condition, and its treatment, on their life. Questionnaires are, therefore, usually designed to focus on one or more specific elements of a patient's well-being. Some PROMs specifically measure a combination of physical, mental, and social aspects, and are collectively known as health-related quality of life tools, while others evaluate single dimensions of health; for example, physical activity. The specific questions within a PROM (known as “items”) are usually grouped together to form appropriate subcategories, or domains. Patients' answers in these subcategories provide individual domain scores, which are often combined to generate an overall PROM score.
PROMs can be broadly categorized as either generic or condition-specific instruments. Generic PROMs measure the well-being of all types of patients, regardless of their illness or disorder. Thus, they are particularly useful for comparing outcomes at the group, or aggregate level. For example, the EQ-5D is a common generic PROM recommended by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy as a standard measure for outpatient MSK physiotherapy practice. Its consistent use across therapy services will allow local and national comparisons with other providers and with the general population. Generic PROMs may not always provide enough level of detail or responsiveness for measuring change in a single patient over time.
On the other hand, condition-specific measures focus on a disease or disorder and address the most relevant concerns for a target population; an example is the Neck Disability Index. Condition-specific PROMs tend to be more responsive to subtle changes in the patient's condition and are therefore better suited to measuring outcomes at the individual level. A third category of PROMs which has gained attention in research and practice includes individualized instruments such as the patient-generated index and patient-specific function scale. Individualized measures examine patients' own definition of health-related quality of life and challenge the prevailing approach of predefinition of the outcomes being measured by researchers and clinicians. Their value is for goal setting and monitoring progress at a strongly individual level, which tends to make them more sensitive to change than the conventional measures. However, policymakers tend not to favor these types of PROMs being used in isolation and they are therefore typically used in combination with other types of PROMs.
| Selecting an “appropriate” Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure|| |
When searching for an appropriate PROM, it is important first to ask the following questions: (a) “what clinician wants to measure?”; (b) “what is the rationale for assessment?”; and (c) “at what level will the measurement take place (group or individual)?” For clinicians wanting to benchmark the performance of their service, it is also increasingly important to ask (d) “what PROMs are recommended and being used by others?” The first question will help determine which health domain (s) should be utilized, for example, pain, mobility, and social functioning. Consideration should also be given to capture the most relevant health domains for the target population. The second, third, and fourth questions will aid the selection of the appropriate tool. For instance, to measure differences in pain between patient groups in a trial, in a way that would be easily generalizable to the population, a generic PROM may be most appropriate. If, on the other hand, one wished to measure the same changes in a single patient with knee pain, to inform decisions about ongoing treatment, a sensitive condition-specific measure may be the best option. Of course, it may be appropriate and optimal to use a generic, a condition-specific PROM, and/or a patient-generated scale in combination. The final selection of PROM should be done with a clear understanding of the ultimate purpose of outcome measurement in the given context, to ensure that the right tool is selected for the job.
PROMs should also be selected based on the strength of their measurement properties (i.e., reliability, validity, and responsiveness), which should be established in the population of interest, and on other key aspects including acceptability and interpretability. Reliability encompasses test–retest reliability, or the degree to which results are replicated over time in stable patients; internal consistency, how well items that are grouped in a domain correlate; and in interviewer-administered PROMs, inter-rater reliability, i.e., agreement between two independent interviewers. Validity encompasses content validity, or the degree to which the PROM evaluates all important aspects of the disease/disorder; construct validity, whether behavior of the measure is consistent with hypotheses regarding: (a) probable relationships with other instruments, and/or (b) performance of the tool in different subgroups; and criterion validity, i.e., correlation with a “gold standard.” Some measures are better than others in their ability to discriminate between individuals with different levels of severity at a single point in time, and some are better than others in their responsiveness, which is their ability to detect change within individuals over time. Measures must also be easily interpretable, i.e., the meaning of differences in PROM score should be clearly understood.
A number of resources are available to aid the selection of validated PROMs. The Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of life Instruments Database (www.proqolid.org) can be searched for specific instruments (e.g., “Neck Disability Index”), or disease/disorder (e.g., “osteoarthritis”), or domain (e.g., “pain”). The International Society for Quality of Life Research has published recommendations on the agreed minimum measurement property standards for PROMs. Finally, the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments group have produced a critical appraisal checklist (available at www.cosmin.nl) for the evaluation of PROM measurement properties.
| Utilizing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Physiotherapy Practice|| |
PROMs can assist physiotherapists in their clinical reasoning process for diagnosis and treatment, with a specific focus on the patient's perspective. Involving the patient in this way can also help stimulate self-management. PROMs can also be used by the physiotherapist, in concert with the patient, to identify the major problems in functioning and activities in daily living. Thus, PROMs can assist in establishing treatment objectives and monitor treatment results. It is also essential to be aware of the PROMs' minimal clinically important difference, defined as: the smallest difference in PROM domain score which patients may perceive to be beneficial and which is “significant enough to change patient management,” and the minimal detectable change, which is defined as the minimal change that falls outside the measurement error in the score of an instrument used to measure a symptom.
| Barriers to Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Use|| |
Clinicians widely recognize the potential use of PROMs for improving the process of care by enhancing communication, patient education, shared decision-making, and monitoring response to treatment. However, several barriers to the use of PROMs have been identified, which could lessen their usefulness in informing important health-care decisions. Literature suggests practical barriers including the absence of a PROM collection infrastructure and the additional staff burden from PROM measurement that was “disruptive to normal work duties,”, the absence of effective PROM-specific organizational and peer support, and a lack of knowledge and confidence about using outcome measures.
Several studies have identified the added value of PROMs in improving the communication between clinicians and patients and for detecting health problems that would otherwise have gone unnoticed. However, the effectiveness of PROMs' feedback on patient outcomes shows that the impact of such interventions is variable.,
| Common Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Musculoskeletal and Neurological Physiotherapy|| |
Refer [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9].
Refer [Table 10], [Table 11], [Table 12], [Table 13], [Table 14].
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Olde Rikkert MG, van der Wees PJ, Schoon Y, Westert GP. Using patient reported outcomes measures to promote integrated care. Int J Integr Care 2018;18:8.
Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 2013;346:f167.
Sloan JA, Berk L, Roscoe J, Fisch MJ, Shaw EG, Wyatt G, et al.
Integrating patient-reported outcomes into cancer symptom management clinical trials supported by the national cancer institute-sponsored clinical trials networks. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5070-7.
Fayers P, Machin D. Quality of Life – The assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2nd
ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.; 2007.
Calvert MJ, Freemantle N. Use of health-related quality of life in prescribing research. Part 1: Why evaluate health-related quality of life? J Clin Pharm Ther 2003;28:513-21.
Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann Med 2001;33:337-43.
Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: A study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991;14:409-15.
Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Leng M, Russell IT, MacDonald LM. A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. The patient-generated index. Med Care 1994;32:1109-26.
Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can 1995;47:258-63.
Bent NP, Wright CC, Rushton AB, Batt ME. Selecting outcome measures in sports medicine: A guide for practitioners using the example of anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation. Br J Sports Med 2009;43:1006-12.
Calvert MJ, Freemantle N. Use of health-related quality of life in prescribing research. Part 2: Methodological considerations for the assessment of health-related quality of life in clinical trials. J Clin Pharm Ther 2004;29:85-94.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al.
The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:22.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al.
The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:737-45.
Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of life Instruments Database (PROQOLID). Available from: http://www.proqolid.org
. [Last accessed on 2019 Jan 07].
Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, et al.
ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 2013;22:1889-905.
Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 2012;21:651-7.
Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res 2009;18:115-23.
Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:81-7.
Boyce MB, Browne JP. Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Qual Life Res 2013;22:2265-78.
Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J. The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;23:508-18.
Duncan EA, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:96.
Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, Guyatt G, Ferrans CE, Halyard MY, et al.
The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 2008;17:179-93.
Boyce MB, Browne JP. Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Qual Life Res 2013;22:2265-78.
Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet 1974;2:1127-31.
Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 1978;37:378-81.
Ferraz MB, Quaresma MR, Aquino LR, Atra E, Tugwell P, Goldsmith CH. Reliability of pain scales in the assessment of literate and illiterate patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1990;17:1022-4.
Wolfe F, Michaud K. Assessment of pain in rheumatoid arthritis: minimal clinically significant difference, predictors, and the effect of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1674–83.
Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, Porucznik CA, Powell AP. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:296-303.
Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:1331-4.
Jensen MP, McFarland CA. Increasing the reliability and validity of pain intensity measurement in chronic pain patients. Pain 1993;55:195-203.
Rodriguez CS. Pain measurement in the elderly: A review. Pain Manag Nurs 2001;2:38-46.
Farrar JT, Young JP Jr., LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149-58.
Linton SJ, Boersma K. Early identification of patients at risk of developing a persistent back problem: The predictive validity of the Orebro musculoskeletal pain questionnaire. Clin J Pain 2003;19:80-6.
Dunstan DA, Covic T, Tyson GA, Lennie IG. Does the Orebro musculoskeletal pain questionnaire predict outcomes following a work-related compensable injury? Int J Rehabil Res 2005;28:369-70.
Linton SJ, Halldén K. Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain. Clin J Pain 1998;14:209-15.
Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland–Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:3115-24.
Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2940-52.
Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 2002;82:8-24.
Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1983;8:141-4.
Stratford PW, Finch E, Solomon P, Binkley J, Gill C, Moreland J. Using the Roland–Morris questionnaire to make decisions about individual patients. Physiother Can 1996;48:107-10.
Vernon H. The neck disability index: State-of-the-art, 1991-2008. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2008;31:491-502.
Hains F, Waalen J, Mior S. Psychometric properties of the neck disability index. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1998;21:75-80.
Pool JJ, Ostelo RW, Hoving JL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Minimal clinically important change of the neck disability index and the numerical rating scale for patients with neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:3047-51.
Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N, Lertratanakul Y. Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res 1991;4:143-9.
Roy JS, MacDermid JC, Woodhouse LJ. Measuring shoulder function: A systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:623-32.
Hill CL, Susan L, Taylor AW, Shanahan ME, Gill TK. Factor structure and validity of the shoulder pain and disability index in a population-based study of people with shoulder symptoms: BMC Musculoskelet Dis 2011; 12: 8.
Paul A, Lewis M, Shadforth MF, Croft PR, Van Der Windt DA, Hay EM. A comparison of four shoulder-specific questionnaires in primary care. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:1293-9.
Angst F, Goldhahn J, Pap G, Mannion AF, Roach KE, Siebertz D, et al.
Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the German shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI). Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46:87-92.
Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The upper extremity collaborative group (UECG) Am J Ind Med 1996;29:602-8.
Davis AM, Beaton DE, Hudak P, Amadio P, Bombardier C, Cole D, et al.
Measuring disability of the upper extremity: A rationale supporting the use of a regional outcome measure. J Hand Ther 1999;12:269-74.
Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the whole or the parts? Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther 2001;14:128-46.
Hefford C, Abbott JH, Arnold R, Baxter GD. The patient-specific functional scale: Validity, reliability, and responsiveness in patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal problems. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012;42:56-65.
Hamilton CB, Chesworth BM. A Rasch-validated version of the upper extremity functional index for interval-level measurement of upper extremity function. Phys Ther 2013;93:1507-19.
Pransky G, Feuerstein M, Himmelstein J, Katz JN, Vickers-Lahti M. Measuring functional outcomes in work-related upper extremity disorders. Development and validation of the upper extremity function scale. J Occup Environ Med 1997;39:1195-202.
Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M, Roos EM. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) – Validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003;4:10.
Lyman S, Lee YY, McLawhorn AS, Islam W, MacLean CH. What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018;476:2432-41.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988;15:1833-40.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt L. Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient-relevant outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthop Rheumatol 1988;1:95-108.
Bellamy N. Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol Suppl 1995;43:49-51.
Bellamy N. WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index: User Guide IV. Queensland (Australia): WOMAC; 2000.
Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) – Development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998;28:88-96.
Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) – Validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:17.
Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63 Suppl 11:S208-28.
Martin RL, Hutt DM, Wukich DK. Validity of the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM) in diabetes mellitus. Foot Ankle Int 2009;30:297-302.
Martin RL, Irrgang JJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM. Evidence of validity for the foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM). Foot Ankle Int 2005;26:968-83.
Carcia CR, Martin RL, Drouin JM. Validity of the foot and ankle ability measure in athletes with chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train 2008;43:179-83.
Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS): Scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. Phys Ther 1999;79:371-83.
Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 1974;2:81-4.
Jennett B, Teasdale G. Aspects of coma after severe head injury. Lancet 1977;1:878-81.
Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:171-8.
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.
Blackburn M, van Vliet P, Mockett SP. Reliability of measurements obtained with the modified Ashworth scale in the lower extremities of people with stroke. Phys Ther 2002;82:25-34.
Tederko P, Krasuski M, Czech J, Dargiel A, Garwacka-Jodzis I, Wojciechowska A. Reliability of clinical spasticity measurement in patients with cervical spinal cord injury. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2007;5:467-83.
Mehrholz J, Wagner K, Meissner D, Grundmann K, Zange C, Koch R, et al.
Reliability of the modified Tardieu scale and the modified Ashworth scale in adult patients with severe brain injury: A comparison study. Clin Rehabil 2005;19:751-9.
Shaw L, Rodgers H, Price C, van Wijck F, Shackley P, Steen N, et al.
BoTULS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treating upper limb spasticity due to stroke with botulinum toxin type A. Health Technol Assess 2010;14:1-113, iii-iv.
Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther 1985;65:175-80.
Poole JL, Whitney SL. Motor assessment scale for stroke patients: Concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988;69:195-7.
Malouin F, Pichard L, Bonneau C, Durand A, Corriveau D. Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke: Comparison of the Fugl–Meyer assessment and the motor assessment scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:1206-12.
Dean C, Mackey F. Motor assessment scale scores as a measure of rehabilitation outcome following stroke. Aust J Physiother 1992;38:31-5.
Berg KO, Wood-Dauphinee SL, Williams JI, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: Validation of an instrument. Can J Public Health 1992;83 Suppl 2:S7-11.
Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Gayton D. Measuring balance in the elderly: Preliminary development of an instrument. Physiother Can 1989;41:304-11.
Donoghue D; Physiotherapy Research and Older People (PROP) group, Stokes EK. How much change is true change? The minimum detectable change of the berg balance scale in elderly people. J Rehabil Med 2009;41:343-6.
Shumway-Cook A, Baldwin M, Polissar NL, Gruber W. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther 1997;77:812-9.
Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL index: A reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 1988;10:61-3.
Green J, Forster A, Young J. A test-retest reliability study of the barthel index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in stroke patients. Disabil Rehabil 2001;23:670-6.
Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The five item barthel index. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;71:225-30.
Hocking C, Williams M, Broad J, Baskett J. Sensitivity of Shah, Vanclay and Cooper's modified barthel index. Clin Rehabil 1999;13:141-7.
Hsieh YW, Wang CH, Wu SC, Chen PC, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the barthel index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007;21:233-8.
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9], [Table 10], [Table 11], [Table 12], [Table 13], [Table 14]