The article by Jaywant et al, Subgroups Defined by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Differ in Functional Gain During Acute Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation, published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2020;101:220-226, contained errors. The article found that subgroups based on scores on the MoCA were associated with mean relative FIM gain (mRFG) and mean relative FIM efficiency (mRFE) in inpatient stroke rehabilitation. The analysis included prospectively collected and retrospectively collected data (via electronic medical record capture) from an inpatient rehabilitation unit. It recently came to the authors’ attention that some of the admission FIM scores captured retrospectively from the medical record were not accurate.
        The authors corrected these scores and re-ran the analyses. All of the primary and secondary findings are consistent and none of the discussion points or conclusions have been affected. That is, MoCA subgroups continue to significantly predict mRFG and mRFE after accounting for age, sex, education, stroke number, and stroke severity. The authors continue to see a difference in the proportion of individuals who meet the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the FIM by MoCA subgroup (although the P-value is different). The regression models with MoCA subgroups continue to account for more variance than regression models using the Cognitive-FIM.
        Below are updated findings. Given that some admission FIM scores have changed, the regression unstandardized β, standard errors, 95% confidence intervals, and P-values have changed. The significance of the predictors remains largely unchanged. The exception is the NIHSS, which is now a predictor in the mRFG model. The updated regression models for MoCA subgroups now account for greater variance in predicting mRFG and mRFE (Adjusted R2 for mRFG is now .20; Adjusted R2 for mRFE is now .17).
        Tabled 1Update to Table 2: (admission FIM scores are the only changes)
        NormalMildly ImpairedModerately ImpairedSignificance (P)Entire Sample
        Mean admission motor-FIM ± SD43.0 ± 11.537.5 ± 11.930.6 ± 13.0normal>mild (.02); mild>moderate (<.001)34.9 ±13.2
        Mean admission cognitive-FIM ± SD31.6 ± 3.229.0 ± 4.623.3 ± 6.9normal>mild (.02); mild>moderate (<.001)26.5 ± 6.6
        Mean admission

        Total-FIM ± SD
        76.3 ± 14.267.8 ± 14.855.5 ± 18.0normal>mild (.007); mild>moderate (<.001)62.9 ± 18.2
        Tabled 1Update to Table 3 (mRFG):
        PredictorUnstandardized βSE95% CItP
        Age-0.290.07-0.43 to -0.16-4.24<0.001
        Sex (female vs male)-2.411.93-6.20 to 1.39-1.2460.21
        Education (less than HS vs HS)-2.753.34-9.33 to 3.82-0.820.41
        Education (some college vs HS)0.343.35-6.26 to 6.940.100.92
        Education (college vs HS)-2.592.58-7.66 to 2.49-1.000.32
        Education (graduate degree vs HS)-4.292.8-9.80 to 1.22-1.530.13
        NIHSS-0.380.17-0.71 to -0.05-2.280.02
        Stroke no. (recurrent vs first stroke)-4.722.24-9.12 to -0.31-2.110.04
        MoCA subgroup (normal vs mildly impaired)11.872.876.23 to 17.514.14<0.001
        MoCA subgroup (moderately impaired vs mildly impaired)-5.472.24-9.87 to -1.07-2.450.02
        Tabled 1Update to Table 4 (mRFE):
        PredictorUnstandardized βSE95% CItP
        Age-0.020.01-0.03 to 0.003-1.610.11
        Sex (female vs male)0.350.27-0.17 to 0.871.3150.189
        Education (less than HS vs HS)0.310.46-0.59 to 1.220.680.50
        Education (some college vs HS)0.400.46-0.51 to 1.310.870.39
        Education (college vs HS)-0.450.36-1.15 to 0.25-1.270.20
        Education (graduate degree vs HS)-0.380.39-1.14 to 0.38-0.980.33
        NIHSS-0.070.02-0.12 to -0.02-3.020.003
        Stroke no. (recurrent vs first stroke)-0.330.31-0.94 to 0.27-1.090.28
        MoCA subgroup (normal vs mildly impaired)1.810.391.04 to 2.594.60<0.001
        MoCA subgroup (moderately impaired vs mildly impaired)-0.820.31-1.42 to -0.21-2.650.008
        Update to Comparison of FIM MCID by MoCA subgroup. The test statistic and the P-value of the MCID comparison by MoCA subgroup is changed (X2 = 3.68, P=.15) but the pattern of percentage difference per subgroup holds: 35% meet the MCID in the Moderately Impaired group, 42% meet the MCID in the Mildly Impaired group, and 49% meet the MCID in the Normal group.
        Update to Exploratory comparison of MoCA subgroups and the cognitive-FIM. The updated regression models continue to show that the cognitive-FIM accounts for a smaller proportion of variance in predicting mRFG (F=8.64, P<.001, Adjusted R2 =.17) and mRFE (F=6.76, P<.001, Adjusted R2 =.14). Within each model, the cognitive-FIM continues to predict mRFG (unstandardized beta=.73, SE=.16, 95% confidence interval, 0.43 to 1.04; t=4.71, P<.001) and mRFE (unstandardized beta=.12, SE=.02, 95% confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.16; t=5.38, P<.001).

        Linked Article