|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
The benefit of inpatient neurorehabilitation in multiple sclerosis
D. Kidd
The National Hospitals for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London
RS Howard
The National Hospitals for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London
NA Losseff
The National Hospitals for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London
AJ Thompson
The National Hospitals for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London
The role of an inpatient neurorehabilitation unit in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS) remains unclear. A necessary first step is the demonstration of benefit in those who are admitted. In order to address this question, 79 patients with MS admitted over a 16-month period for multidisciplinary rehabilitation were studied using assessment scales as measures of disability and handicap. Fourteen patients were recovering from a recent relapse and the remaining 65 were in the progressive phase of the disease. The patients were clinically assessed and rated on admission and discharge using Kurtzke's Disability Status Scale (DSS), the Barthel Index (BI) and the Environmental Status Scale (ESS). A statistically significant functional improvement was seen in 65% of patients as determined by the Barthel Index and 44% improved on the ESS. Improvement was most marked in those in whom a reduction in impairment had occurred during recovery from relapse but also occurred in 63% of those who had not changed neurologically. These results suggest a beneficial effect from admission to a neurorehabilitation unit for patients with MS, including those in the progressive phase of the disease, although its role in the long-term management of MS remains to be defined.
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 9, No. 3,
198-203 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/026921559500900304

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
V. de Groot, H. Beckerman, B. M. J. Uitdehaag, H. C. W. de Vet, G. J. Lankhorst, C. H. Polman, and L. M. Bouter
The usefulness of evaluative outcome measures in patients with multiple sclerosis
Brain,
October 1, 2006;
129(10):
2648 - 2659.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L K Storr, P S Sorensen, and M Ravnborg
The efficacy of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in stable multiple sclerosis patients
Multiple Sclerosis,
April 1, 2006;
12(2):
235 - 242.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D W Langdon and A J Thompson
Multiple sclerosis: a preliminary study of selected variables affecting rehabilitation outcome
Multiple Sclerosis,
April 1, 1999;
5(2):
94 - 100.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J J M F van der Putten, J C Hobart, J A Freeman, and A J Thompson
Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry,
April 1, 1999;
66(4):
480 - 484.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. A. Freeman, D. W. Langdon, J. C. Hobart, and A. J. Thompson
Inpatient rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: Do the benefits carry over into the community?
Neurology,
January 1, 1999;
52(1):
50 - 50.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. K. Ko
Effectiveness of rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis
Clinical Rehabilitation,
January 1, 1999;
13(1_suppl):
33 - 41.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J Sitzia, V Haddrell, and M Rice-Oxley
Evaluation of a nurse-led multidisciplinary neurological rehabilitation programme using the Nottingham Health Profile
Clinical Rehabilitation,
May 1, 1998;
12(5):
389 - 394.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. Fuller, K. Dawson, and C. Wiles
Physiotherapy in chronic multiple sclerosis: a controlled trial
Clinical Rehabilitation,
August 1, 1996;
10(3):
195 - 204.
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|