国内Barthel指数和改良Barthel指数应用的回顾性研究  

Review of the application of Barthel Index and Modified Barthel Index in China's Mainland

作　　者：李奎成[1] 唐丹[1] 刘晓艳[1] 徐艳文[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东省工伤康复中心

出　　处：《中国康复医学杂志》2009年第8期737-740,共4页Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

摘　　要：目的:系统回顾分析国内Barthel指数(BI)和改良Barthel指数(MBI)的发展及使用情况,以利于今后量表的规范化使用。方法:通过系统回顾的方法对1979年以来有关BI与MBI的文献和书籍进行系统分析。结果:有关BI的文献723篇,其中,73.12%—84.39%作为判断康复疗效的指标,而针对其本身研究的文献仅发现1篇。在入选的29篇MBI文献中,66.67%—73.12%的文章显示MBI作为疗效的判断,但没有发现针对量表本身的研究。同时,涉及MBI的专业书籍中85%错误认为BI就是MBI。结论:BI和MBI是日常生活活动(ADL)评定及疗效判定的重要指标,但在国内使用中缺乏针对性的研究,使用混乱,甚至错误地将BI认为是MBI。因此,正确区分BI和MBI及规范化其使用方法是很有必要的。Objective： To study the application of Barthel Index （BI） and Modified Barthel Index （MBI） in China's Mainland and correct the mistake. Method： Review the journal articles, books and other articles from 1979 to 2008. Result： BI was used as an outcome measurement tool in 73.12%--84.39% of 723 articles. While MBI was used as a therapeutic effect index in 66.67%--73.12% of 29 articles. On the other hand, only one article involved the study of BI itself. But none of the articles tried to study MBI. In twenty books there were seven books introduced MBI, but most of the books （85.71%） did not introduce MBI tightly. Conclusion： BI and MBI were widely used in activities of daily living （ADL） evaluation and theraputic effect measurement, but there is lack of comparative on BI and MBI in China's Mainland. Someone even regarded BI as MBI. So to differentiate and apply BI and MBI correctly are needed urgently.

关 键 词：康复评定 BARTHEL指数 改良BARTHEL指数 

分 类 号：R493[医药卫生—康复医学]