OBJECTIVES: This paper presents consensus work conducted with an international group of expert stroke recovery and rehabilitation researchers, clinicians, and people living with stroke to identify and define criteria and measurable indicators for Centers of Clinical Excellence (CoCE) in stroke recovery and rehabilitation. These were intentionally developed to be ambitious and internationally relevant, regardless of a country's development or income status, to drive global improvement in stroke services.
METHODS: Criteria and specific measurable indicators for CoCE were collaboratively developed by an international panel of stroke recovery and rehabilitation experts from 10 countries and consumer groups from 5 countries.
RESULTS: The criteria and associated indicators, ranked in order of importance, focused upon (i) optimal outcome, (ii) research culture, (iii) working collaboratively with people living with stroke, (iv) knowledge exchange, (v) leadership, (vi) education, and (vii) advocacy. Work is currently underway to user-test the criteria and indicators in 14 rehabilitation centers in 10 different countries.
CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that use of the criteria and indicators could support individual organizations to further develop their services and, more widely, provide a mechanism by which clinical excellence can be articulated and shared to generate global improvements in stroke care.
AIM: This study aimed to compare the performance of BMI, waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-height ratio (WtHR) in predicting Malaysians with excess body fat defined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 399 men and women aged ≥40 years were recruited from Klang Valley, Malaysia. The body composition of the subjects, including body fat percentage, was measured by DXA. The weight, height, WC and WHtR of the subjects were also determined.
RESULTS: BMI [sensitivity = 55.7%, specificity = 86.1%, area under curve (AUC) = 0.709] and WC (sensitivity = 62.7%, specificity = 90.3%, AUC = 0.765) performed moderately in predicting excess adiposity. Their performance and sensitivity improved with lower cut-off values. The performance of WHtR (sensitivity = 96.6%, specificity = 36.1, AUC = 0.664) was optimal at the standard cut-off value and no modification was required.
CONCLUSION: The performance of WC in identifying excess adiposity was greater than BMI and WHtR based on AUC values. Modification of cut-off values for BMI and WC could improve their performance and should be considered by healthcare providers in screening individuals with excess adiposity.