Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Rehabilitation impact indices and their independent predictors: A systematic review
Authors: Koh, G.C.-H. 
Chen, C.H.
Petrella, R.
Thind, A.
Issue Date: 2013
Citation: Koh, G.C.-H., Chen, C.H., Petrella, R., Thind, A. (2013). Rehabilitation impact indices and their independent predictors: A systematic review. BMJ Open 3 (9) : -. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.
Abstract: Objectives: To (1) identify all available rehabilitation impact indices (RIIs) based on their mathematical formula, (2) assess the evidence for independent predictors of each RII and (3) propose a nomenclature system to harmonise the names of RIIs. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: PubMed and references in primary articles. Study selection: First, we identified all available RII through preliminary literature review. Then, various names of the same formula were used to identify studies, limited to articles in English and up to 31 December 2011, including case-control and cohort studies, and controlled interventional trials where RIIs were outcome variable and matching or multivariate analysis was performed. Results: The five RIIs identified were (1) absolute functional gain (AFG)/absolute efficacy/total gain, (2) rehabilitation effectiveness (REs)/Montebello Rehabilitation Factor Score (MRFS)/relative functional gain (RFG), (3) rehabilitation efficiency (REy)/length of stay-efficiency (LOS-EFF)/efficiency, (4) relative functional efficiency (RFE)/MRFS efficiency and (5) revised MRFS (MRFS-R). REy/LOS-EFF/efficiency had the most number of supporting studies, followed by REs and AFG. Although evidence for different predictors of RIIs varied according to the RII and study population, there is good evidence that older age, lower prerehabilitation functional status and cognitive impairment are predictive of poorer AFG, REs and REy. Conclusions: 5 RIIs have been developed in the past two decades as composite rehabilitation outcome measures controlling premorbid and prerehabilitation functional status, rate of functional improvement, each with varying levels of evidence for its predictors. To address the issue of multiple names for the same RII, a new nomenclature system is proposed to harmonise the names based on common mathematical formula and a first-named basis.
Source Title: BMJ Open
ISSN: 20446055
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003483
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
2013-rehabilitation_impact_indices_their_independent-pub.pdf1.5 MBAdobe PDF




checked on Feb 15, 2020


checked on Feb 7, 2020

Page view(s)

checked on Feb 15, 2020


checked on Feb 15, 2020

Google ScholarTM



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.