脑卒中后疲乏评估工具的系统评价

doi:10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2026.07.018

中华护理教育 ›› 2026, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (7): 883-890.doi: 10.3761/j.issn.1672-9234.2026.07.018

脑卒中后疲乏评估工具的系统评价

杨紫燕¹(), 沈宋炎¹, 赵小换¹, 汤露², 俞国红¹^,^*()

¹ 浙江中医药大学附属第一医院（浙江省中医院）护理部杭州市 310060
² 浙江中医药大学护理学院杭州市 310053

收稿日期:2026-02-24 出版日期:2026-07-15 发布日期:2026-07-17
通讯作者: *俞国红，E-mail：yghyuer@163.com
作者简介:杨紫燕：女，硕士，护师，E-mail：1635079938@qq.com
第一联系人：作者贡献声明
研究构思与设计为杨紫燕、俞国红，数据收集与处理为杨紫燕、沈宋炎、赵小换、汤露，论文撰写为杨紫燕、赵小换，论文修改和审校为杨紫燕、俞国红。
基金资助:
浙江省中医药科技计划(2026ZL0367)

Systematic review of fatigue assessment tools for stroke patients

YANG Ziyan¹(), SHEN Songyan¹, ZHAO Xiaohuan¹, TANG Lu², YU Guohong¹^,^*()

¹ Department of Nursing， the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University（Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine）， Hangzhou 310060， China
² School of Nursing， Zhejiang University of Traditional Chinese Medicine， Hangzhou 310053， China

Received:2026-02-24 Online:2026-07-15 Published:2026-07-17
Contact: *YU Guohong，E-mail：yghyuer@163.com
Supported by:
Zhejiang Traditional Chinese Medicine Science and Technology Project(2026ZL0367)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的系统评价脑卒中后疲乏评估工具的测量属性和相关研究的方法学质量。方法计算机检索PubMed、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、维普、万方及中国生物医学文献数据库，获取与脑卒中后疲乏评估工具相关的研究，检索时限为建库至2026年4月13日。由2名研究者独立筛选文献、提取资料，使用基于共识选择健康测量工具的标准对纳入评估工具的测量属性和相关研究的方法学质量进行评价，并形成工具的推荐意见。结果共纳入18项研究，涉及18种评估工具，推荐等级均为B。结论脑卒中后疲乏评估工具多样，但整体质量不高。疲劳评价量表和多维度疲劳量表简表可暂时被推荐使用，但仍需对其测量属性行进一步验证。

关键词: 脑卒中, 疲乏, 评估工具, 测量属性, 系统评价

Abstract:

Objective To systematically evaluate the psychometric properties of fatigue assessment tools for stroke patients and the methodological quality of relevant studies. Methods Electronic databases including PubMed，Embase，CINAHL，Cochrane Library，Web of Science，CNKI，VIP，Wanfang Data and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database（CBM） were searched to retrieve studies on fatigue assessment tools for stroke patients. The search period was from inception of each database to April 13，2026. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted relevant data. The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments were adopted to assess the psychometric properties of included assessment tools and the methodological quality of relevant studies，and clinical recommendations for these tools were formulated. Results A total of 18 studies involving 18 assessment tools were included，and all tools were recommended as Grade B. Conclusion There are various fatigue assessment tools for stroke patients，while their overall methodological quality is suboptimal. The Fatigue Assessment Scale and Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form are conditionally recommended for clinical application，although their psychometric properties require further validation.

Key words: Stroke, Fatigue, Assessment Tools, Psychometric Properties, Systematic Review

杨紫燕, 沈宋炎, 赵小换, 汤露, 俞国红. 脑卒中后疲乏评估工具的系统评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2026, 23(7): 883-890.

YANG Ziyan, SHEN Songyan, ZHAO Xiaohuan, TANG Lu, YU Guohong. Systematic review of fatigue assessment tools for stroke patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Nursing Education, 2026, 23(7): 883-890.

图/表 4

参考文献 26

[1]	Lanctôt KL, Lindsay MP, Smith EE, et al. Canadian stroke best practice recommendations:mood,cognition and fatigue follow-ing stroke,6th edition update 2019[J]. Int J Stroke, 2020, 15(6):668-688. doi: 10.1177/1747493019847334
[2]	Chen WJ, Jiang T, Huang HH, et al. Post-stroke fatigue:a review of development,prevalence,predisposing factors,measurements,and treatments[J]. Front Neurol, 2023, 14:1298915.
[3]	Miller T, Stockley R, Drummond A, et al. Online advice for the symptomatic management of post-stroke fatigue:a scoping review[J]. J Psychosom Res, 2022, 162:111039. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2022.111039
[4]	Zhou J, Fangma Y, Chen Z, et al. Post-stroke neuropsychiatric complications:types,pathogenesis,and therapeutic intervention[J]. Aging Dis, 2023, 14(6):2127-2152. doi: 10.14336/AD.2023.0310-2
[5]	Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures[J]. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5):1147-1157. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3 pmid: 29435801
[6]	Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures[J]. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5):1171-1179. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4 pmid: 29260445
[7]	Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, et al. COSMIN methodo-logy for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported out-come measures:a Delphi study[J]. Qual Life Res, 2018, 27(5):1159-1170. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0 pmid: 29550964
[8]	Alhazzani W, Guyatt G. An overview of the GRADE approach and a peek at the future[J]. Med J Aust, 2018, 209(7):291-292. pmid: 30257627
[9]	Fallah S, Taghizadeh G, Parnain Z, et al. Persian version of the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire and Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form:psychometric properties in Iranian chronic stroke survivors[J]. Top Stroke Rehabil, 2023, 30(8):796-806. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2023.2175421
[10]	吴春薇, 刘占东, 张拥波, 等. 3种疲劳量表对脑梗死患者疲劳状况的综合评价[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2009, 15(5):458-460.
	Wu CW, Liu ZD, Zhang YB, et al. Evaluation of Chinese version of 3 fatigue questionnaires for stroke patients[J]. Chin J Rehabil Theory Pract, 2009, 15(5):458-460.
[11]	Batur EB, Ozyemisçi-Taskiran O, Yuksel S, et al. Validity and reliability of the fatigue impact scale in stroke[J]. Top Stroke Rehabil, 2022, 29(7):526-537. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2021.1978629
[12]	刘晓玲, 马素慧. 精神疲劳自评量表的汉化及信度和效度检验[J]. 中国康复医学杂志, 2018, 33(8):953-958.
	Liu XL, Ma SH. Sinicization of mental fatigue self-rating scale and its reliability and validity test[J]. Chin J Rehabil Med, 2018, 33(8):953-958.
[13]	陈祎婷, 施娟, 夏会, 等. 中文版多维疲乏目录应用于脑卒中患者的信效度检验[J]. 上海护理, 2022, 22(4):17-21.
	Chen YT, Shi J, Xia H, et al. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of multidimensional fatigue inventory in stroke patients[J]. Shanghai Nurs, 2022, 22(4):17-21.
[14]	Nadarajah M, Mazlan M, Abdul-Latif L, et al. Test-retest reliability,internal consistency and concurrent validity of Fatigue Severity Scale in measuring post-stroke fatigue[J]. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med, 2017, 53(5):703-709.
[15]	Ozyemisci-Taskiran O, Batur EB, Yuksel S, et al. Validity and reliability of fatigue severity scale in stroke[J]. Top Stroke Rehabil, 2019, 26(2):122-127. doi: 10.1080/10749357.2018.1550957 pmid: 30475156
[16]	Lerdal A, Kottorp A. Psychometric properties of the Fatigue Severity Scale:rasch analyses of individual responses in a Norwegian stroke cohort[J]. Int J Nurs Stud, 2011, 48(10):1258-1265. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.02.019
[17]	Smith ORF, Van Den Broek KC, Renkens M, et al. Comparison of fatigue levels in patients with stroke and patients with end-stage heart failure:application of the fatigue assessment scale[J]. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2008, 56(10):1915-1919. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01925.x pmid: 18771452
[18]	Ho LYW, Lai CKY, Ng SSM. Measuring fatigue following stroke:the Chinese version of the Fatigue Assessment Scale[J]. Disabil Rehabil, 2021, 43(22):3234-3241. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1730455
[19]	Goh HT, Stewart J, Becker K. Validating the fatigue scale for motor and cognitive function(FSMC) in chronic stroke[J]. NeuroRehabilitation, 2024, 54(2):275-285. doi: 10.3233/NRE-230189
[20]	陈宏梅, 张松, 王英歌, 等. 脑卒中神经疲劳指数量表的汉化及信效度评价[J]. 护理研究, 2020, 34(23):4135-4138.
	Chen HM, Zhang S, Wang YG, et al. Chinese version of Neuro-logical Fatigue Index for Stroke and its reliability and validity test[J]. Chin Nurs Res, 2020, 34(23):4135-4138.
[21]	Ho LY, Lai CK, Ng SS. Testing the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Neurological Fatigue Index-Stroke[J]. Clin Rehabil, 2021, 35(9):1329-1340. doi: 10.1177/02692155211001684
[22]	Butt Z, Lai JS, Rao D, et al. Measurement of fatigue in cancer,stroke,and HIV using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy:Fatigue(FACIT-F) scale[J]. J Psychosom Res, 2013, 74(1):64-68. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.10.011
[23]	Chuang LL, Lin KC, Hsu AL, et al. Reliability and validity of a vertical numerical rating scale supplemented with a faces rating scale in measuring fatigue after stroke[J]. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2015, 13(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0290-9
[24]	Tseng BY, Gajewski BJ, Kluding PM. Reliability,responsive-ness,and validity of the visual analog fatigue scale to measure exertion fatigue in people with chronic stroke:a preliminary study[J]. Stroke Res Treat, 2010, 2010:412964.
[25]	Mead G, Lynch J, Greig C, et al. Evaluation of fatigue scales in stroke patients[J]. Stroke, 2007, 38(7):2090-2095. pmid: 17525397
[26]	Bragstad LK, Lerdal A, Gay CL, et al. Psychometric properties of a short version of Lee Fatigue Scale used as a generic PROM in persons with stroke or osteoarthritis:assessment using a Rasch analysis approach[J]. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2020, 18(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01419-8

脑卒中后疲乏评估工具的系统评价

Systematic review of fatigue assessment tools for stroke patients

HTML阅读

PDF下载

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 26

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	张思, 顾怡薇, 金三丽. 基于屏端交互的虚拟教学对护理专业学生临床推理能力影响的系统评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2026, 23(5): 560-567.
[2]	吕培华, 周雪迎, 郭园丽, 马珂珂, 郝娟娟, 刘延锦. 中青年首发缺血性脑卒中患者疾病管理旅程地图的研究[J]. 中华护理教育, 2026, 23(3): 350-356.
[3]	周巧学, 朱红玉, 辛丽, 何红梅, 盛孝敏. 结直肠癌造口患者运动恐惧现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中华护理教育, 2026, 23(3): 357-363.
[4]	张金满, 王琪, 刘茜, 邹会静, 杨冰香. 人工智能素养评估工具的研究进展及护理启示[J]. 中华护理教育, 2026, 23(2): 158-164.
[5]	杨素珍, 魏锦轩, 王颖, 李颖, 仲伟娜, 张欣雨, 崔永军, 程海荣. 维持性血液透析患者衰弱风险预测模型的系统评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2026, 23(1): 101-109.
[6]	高嘉晨, 马珂珂, 杨彩侠, 庞舒贝, 王文雅, 郭园丽. 脑卒中吞咽障碍患者进食护理的循证实践[J]. 中华护理教育, 2026, 23(1): 109-116.
[7]	步皓宁, 常起航, 王雪, 于佳欣, 安力彬, 李文涛. 人工智能技术在护理教育中应用效果的系统评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2025, 22(9): 1057-1064.
[8]	刘宁静, 许亚红, 闫煜然. 护理实习生转型冲击相关因素的系统评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2025, 22(7): 808-815.
[9]	郑志敏, 陈仁, 伍丽欣, 符奋, 谢小欢, 温梦玲, 李春霞. 脑卒中吞咽障碍患者间歇性经口至食管管饲管理的循证实践[J]. 中华护理教育, 2025, 22(7): 874-881.
[10]	林雯琼, 张盼盼, 李淞瑶, 李雅茹, 房紫如, 张红梅. 工作重塑在工作环境和脑卒中专科护士培训迁移间的中介效应研究[J]. 中华护理教育, 2025, 22(5): 580-584.
[11]	姚佳盈, 赵梦琴, 朱慧, 李英, 王俊辉, 沈欣怡, 刘婷婷, 浦丽敏, 陈肖敏. 癌症相关认知障碍发生率及影响因素的系统评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2025, 22(5): 623-629.
[12]	张赛雅, 孙仪泽, 赵天芮, 葛艳红, 李萍, 张丽华. 中文版成人药物素养评估工具的系统评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2025, 22(4): 478-485.
[13]	杨盼, 沈傲梅, 张力川, 路潜. 《结局测量工具系统评价报告指南》解读[J]. 中华护理教育, 2025, 22(4): 502-506.
[14]	张海莹, 王雪辰, 杨迪, 张凤娃. 中文版老年人跌倒恐惧评估工具测量属性的系统评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2025, 22(3): 355-362.
[15]	沈淑洁, 刘洪秀, 李龙田, 魏思琪. 育龄期癌症患者生育忧虑评估工具的系统评价[J]. 中华护理教育, 2025, 22(2): 238-246.