This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Allen W. Heinemann, PhD; Elliott Roth, MD
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine

Kristine Cichowski, MS
Program Evaluation and Follow-up

Henry B. Betts, MD
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine Northwestern University Medical School Chicago, IL 60611

Arch Neurol. 1989;46(12):1271.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—Vanclay and Shah address concerns about the statistical analysis and completeness of data in our manuscript, "Multivariate Analysis of Improvement and Outcome Following Stroke Rehabilitation" in their letter. Please note our response to their concerns.

1. They contend that we ignored fundamental issues related to sample appropriateness, diagnosis, comorbidity, timing, and use of an activities of daily living measure of unknown reliability and validity.

We believe the sample of rehabilitation inpatients was appropriate for study. The sample was composed of patients admitted for their first stroke rehabilitation, a population that comprises a large number of rehabilitation cases in the United States and in other countries. All patients' had a primary diagnosis of stroke, and presented the usual range of comorbidities found in this population. The timing of functional assessment, at admission and discharge, is reasonable, since we wanted to observe changes that occurred during patients' stays. The Barthel Index has . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?