Posts Tagged impairment

[ARTICLE] A Systematic Review of International Clinical Guidelines for Rehabilitation of People With Neurological Conditions: What Recommendations Are Made for Upper Limb Assessment? – Full Text

Background: Upper limb impairment is a common problem for people with neurological disabilities, affecting activity, performance, quality of life, and independence. Accurate, timely assessments are required for effective rehabilitation, and development of novel interventions. International consensus on upper limb assessment is needed to make research findings more meaningful, provide a benchmark for quality in clinical practice, more cost-effective neurorehabilitation and improved outcomes for neurological patients undergoing rehabilitation.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review, as part of the output of a European COST Action, to identify what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment.

Methods: We systematically reviewed published guidance on measures and protocols for assessment of upper limb function in neurological rehabilitation via electronic databases from January 2007–December 2017. Additional records were then identified through other sources. Records were selected for inclusion based on scanning of titles, abstracts and full text by two authors working independently, and a third author if there was disagreement. Records were included if they referred to “rehabilitation” and “assessment” or “measurement”. Reasons for exclusion were documented.

Results: From the initial 552 records identified (after duplicates were removed), 34 satisfied our criteria for inclusion, and only six recommended specific outcome measures and /or protocols. Records were divided into National Guidelines and other practice guidelines published in peer reviewed Journals. There was agreement that assessment is critical, should be conducted early and at regular intervals and that there is a need for standardized measures. Assessments should be conducted by a healthcare professional trained in using the measure and should encompass body function and structure, activity and participation.

Conclusions: We present a comprehensive, critical, and original summary of current recommendations. Defining a core set of measures and agreed protocols requires international consensus between experts representing the diverse and multi-disciplinary field of neurorehabilitation including clinical researchers and practitioners, rehabilitation technology researchers, and commercial developers. Current lack of guidance may hold-back progress in understanding function and recovery. Together with a Delphi consensus study and an overview of systematic reviews of outcome measures it will contribute to the development of international guidelines for upper limb assessment in neurological conditions.

Introduction

Worldwide prevalence of stroke in 2010 was 33 million, with 16.9 million people having a first stroke, of which 795,000 were American and 1.1 million European (1). It has been estimated that approximately one third of people fail to regain upper limb capacity, despite receiving therapy (2). This has important implications for both individuals and the wider society as reduced upper limb function is associated with dependence and poor quality of life for both patients and carers (35) and impacts on national economies (6).

While stroke has the highest prevalence, other neurological conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), and Traumatic Brian Injury, have a significant incidence and there are often similarities in presentation, and treatment and therefore assessment. The worldwide incidence of SCI is 40–80 cases per million population and the estimated European mean annual rate of MS incidence is 4.3 cases per 100,000 (7). Recently, Kister et al. (8) reported that 60% of people with MS have impaired hand function. The impact of upper limb dysfunction on ADL is higher than in stroke, as both sides are often affected (9). Although dysfunction after SCI depends on level of injury, upper limb function is consistently cited as a health priority. The incidence rate of TBI in Europe is about 235 per 100,000 population (10). Outcome data among European countries are very heterogeneous. From the US however, it is known that about 1.1% of the population suffer a TBI resulting in long term disability (11).

 

Continue —>  Frontiers | A Systematic Review of International Clinical Guidelines for Rehabilitation of People With Neurological Conditions: What Recommendations Are Made for Upper Limb Assessment? | Neurology

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[REVIEW] A review of international clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of people with neurological conditions: what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment?

Background: Upper limb impairment is a common problem for people with neurological disabilities, affecting activity, performance, quality of life and independence. Accurate, timely assessments are required for effective rehabilitation, and development of novel interventions. International consensus on upper limb assessment is needed to make research findings be more meaningful, provide a benchmark for quality in clinical practice, more cost-effective neurorehabilitation and improved outcomes for neurological patients undergoing rehabilitation.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review, as part of the output of a European COST Action, to identify what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment.

Methods: We systematically reviewed published guidance on measures and protocols for assessing upper limb function in neurological rehabilitation via electronic databases from January 2007 – December 2017. Additional records were then identified through other sources. Records were selected for inclusion based on scanning of titles, abstracts and full text by two authors working independently, and a third author if there was disagreement. Records were included if they referred to ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘assessment’ or ‘measurement’. Reasons for exclusion were documented.
Results: From the initial 552 records identified (after duplicates were removed), 34 satisfied our criteria for inclusion and only six recommended specific outcome measures and /or protocols. Records were divided into National Guidelines and other practice guidelines published in peer reviewed Journals. There was agreement that assessment is critical, should be conducted early and at regular intervals and that there is a need for standardised measures. Assessments should be conducted by a healthcare professional trained in using the measure and should encompass body function and structure, activity and participation.
Conclusions: We present a comprehensive, critical and original summary of current recommendations. Defining a core set of measures and agreed protocols requires international consensus between experts representing the diverse and multi-disciplinary field of neurorehabilitation including clinical researchers and practitioners, rehabilitation technology researchers and commercial developers. Current lack of guidance may hold-back progress in understanding function and recovery. Together with a Delphi consensus study and an overview of systematic reviews of outcome measures it will contribute to the development of international guidelines for upper limb assessment in neurological conditions.

 

via Frontiers | A review of international clinical guidelines for rehabilitation of people with neurological conditions: what recommendations are made for upper limb assessment? | Neurology

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Relationship Between Clinical Measures of Upper Limb Movement Quality and Activity Poststroke

Background. Understanding the relationship between movement quality (impairment) and performance (activity) in poststroke patients is important for rehabilitation intervention studies. This has led to an interest in kinematic characterization of upper limb motor impairment. Since instrumented motion analysis is not readily clinically available, observational kinematics may be a viable alternative.

Objective. To determine if upper limb movement quality during a reach-to-grasp task identified by observation could be used to describe the relationship between motor impairments and the time to perform functional tasks.

Methods. Cross-sectional, secondary analysis of baseline data from 141 participants with stroke, age 18 to 85 years, who participated in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clinical assessment of movement quality using the Reaching Performance Scale for Stroke (RPSS–Close and Far targets) and of performance (activity) from the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT–7 items) was assessed. The degree to which RPSS component scores explained scores on WMFT items was determined by multivariable regression.

Results. Clinically significant decreases (>2 seconds) in performance time for some of the more complex WMFT tasks involving prehension were predicted from RPSS–Close and Far target components. Trunk compensatory movements did not predict either increases or decreases in performance time for the WMFT tasks evaluated. Overall, the strength of the regression models was low.

Conclusions. In lieu of kinematic analysis, observational clinical movement analysis may be a valid and accessible method to determine relationships between motor impairment, compensations and upper limb function in poststroke patients. Specific relationships are unlikely to generalize to all tasks due to kinematic redundancy and task specificity.

 

via Relationship Between Clinical Measures of Upper Limb Movement Quality and Activity Poststroke – Mindy F. Levin, Vimonwan Hiengkaew, Yongchai Nilanont, Donna Cheung, David Dai, Jennifer Shaw, Mark Bayley, Gustavo Saposnik, 2019

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Non-pharmacological interventions for spasticity in adults: An overview of systematic reviews

Abstract

Objectives

Spasticity causes significant long-term disability-burden, requiring comprehensive management. This review evaluates evidence from published systematic reviews of clinical trials for effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for improved spasticity outcomes.

Methods

Data sources: a literature search was conducted using medical and health science electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library) databases for published systematic reviews up to 15th June 2017. Data extraction and synthesis: two reviewers applied inclusion criteria to select potential systematic reviews, independently extracted data for methodological quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Quality of evidence was critically appraised with Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Results

Overall 18 systematic reviews were evaluated for evidence for a range of non-pharmacological interventions currently used in managing spasticity in various neurological conditions. There is “moderate” evidence for electro-neuromuscular stimulation and acupuncture as an adjunct therapy to conventional routine care (pharmacological and rehabilitation) in persons following stroke. “Low” quality evidence for rehabilitation programs targeting spasticity (such as induced movement therapy, stretching, dynamic elbow-splinting, occupational therapy) in stroke and other neurological conditions; extracorporeal shock-wave therapy in brain injury; transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke; transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for other neurological conditions; physical activity programs and repetitive magnetic stimulation in persons with MS, vibration therapy for SCI and stretching for other neurological condition. For other interventions, evidence was inconclusive.

Conclusions

Despite the available range of non-pharmacological interventions for spasticity, there is lack of high-quality evidence for many modalities. Further research is needed to judge the effect with appropriate study designs, timing and intensity of modalities, and associate costs of these interventions.

 

via Non-pharmacological interventions for spasticity in adults: An overview of systematic reviews – ScienceDirect

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract+References] Does Stroke Rehabilitation Really Matter? Part A: Proportional Stroke Recovery in the Rat

Abstract

Background. In human upper-limb stroke, initial level of functional impairment or corticospinal tract injury can accurately predict the degree of poststroke recovery, independent of rehabilitation practices. This proportional recovery rule implies that current rehabilitation practices may play little or no role in brain repair, with recovery largely a result of spontaneous biological recovery processes.

Objective. The present study sought to determine if similar biomarkers predict recovery of poststroke function in rats, indicating that an endogenous biological recovery process might be preserved across mammalian species.

Methods. Using a cohort of 593 male Sprague-Dawley rats, we predicted poststroke change in pellet retrieval in the Montoya staircase-reaching task based on initial impairment alone. Stratification of the sample into “fitters” and “nonfitters” of the proportional recovery rule using hierarchical cluster analysis allowed identification of distinguishing characteristics of these subgroups.

Results. Approximately 30% of subjects were identified as fitters of the rule. These rats showed recovery in proportion to their initial level of impairment of 66% (95% CI = 62%-70%). This interval overlaps with those of multiple human clinical trials. A number of variables, including less severe infarct volumes and initial poststroke impairments distinguished fitters of the rule from nonfitters.

Conclusions. These findings suggest that proportional recovery is a cross-species phenomenon that can be used to uncover biological mechanisms contributing to stroke recovery.

1. Prabhakaran, S, Zarahn, E, Riley, C. Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:6471Google ScholarLink
2. Winters, C, van Wegen, EEH, Daffertshofer, A, Kwakkel, G. Generalizability of the proportional recovery model for the upper extremity after an ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:614622Google ScholarLinkISI
3. Byblow, WD, Stinear, CM, Barber, PA, Petoe, MA, Ackerley, SJ. Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol. 2015;78:848859Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
4. Feng, W, Wang, J, Chhatbar, PY. Corticospinal tract lesion load: an imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann Neurol. 2015;78:860870Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
5. Stinear, CM, Byblow, WD, Ackerley, SJ, Smith, MC, Borges, VM, Barber, PA. Proportional motor recovery after stroke: implications for trial design. Stroke. 2017;48:795798Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
6. Smith, MC, Byblow, WD, Barber, PA, Stinear, CM. Proportional recovery from lower limb motor impairment after stroke. Stroke. 2017;48:14001403Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
7. Winters, C, van Wegen, EEH, Daffertshofer, A, Kwakkel, G. Generalizability of the maximum proportional recovery rule to visuospatial neglect early poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:334342Google ScholarLink
8. Lazar, RM, Minzer, B, Antoniello, D, Festa, JR, Krakauer, JW, Marshall, RS. Improvement in aphasia scores after stroke is well predicted by initial severity. Stroke. 2010;41:14851488Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
9. Krakauer, JW, Marshall, RS. The proportional recovery rule for stroke revisited. Ann Neurol. 2015;78:845847Google ScholarCrossrefMedline
10. Gladstone, DJ, Danells, CJ, Black, SE. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16:232240Google ScholarLink
11. Carmichael, ST. Rodent models of focal stroke: size, mechanism, and purpose. NeuroRx. 2005;2:396409Google ScholarCrossrefMedline

via Does Stroke Rehabilitation Really Matter? Part A: Proportional Stroke Recovery in the RatNeurorehabilitation and Neural Repair – Matthew Strider Jeffers, Sudhir Karthikeyan, Dale Corbett, 2018

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[REVIEW] Outcome Measures | EBRSR – Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation – Full Text PDF

Abstract

To enhance the clinical meaningfulness of the SREBR, the present review provides the best available information on how outcome measures might be classified and selected for use, based upon their measurement qualities. For this purpose, we have selected for review some of the most commonly-used measures in stroke rehabilitation. The ICF conceptual framework is used to classify measures in stroke rehabilitation and aspects of measurement theory pertinent for evaluating measures are discussed. Each measure reviewed in this chapter was evaluated in terms of appropriateness, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, applicability and feasibility. All measures were assessed for the thoroughness with which its reliability, validity and responsiveness have been reported. The present document contains summary reviews of 38 assessment tools used in the evaluation of Body Structure (14 tools), Activity (15 tools) and Participation (9 tools) outcomes.

Get Full Text PDF

via Outcome Measures | EBRSR – Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation.

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: