Upper Limb Outcome Measures Used in Stroke Rehabilitation Studies: A Systematic Literature Review

Leire Santisteban, Maxime Térémetz, Jean-Pierre Bleton, Jean-Claude Baron, Marc A Maier, Påvel G Lindberg, Leire Santisteban, Maxime Térémetz, Jean-Pierre Bleton, Jean-Claude Baron, Marc A Maier, Påvel G Lindberg

Abstract

Background: Establishing which upper limb outcome measures are most commonly used in stroke studies may help in improving consensus among scientists and clinicians.

Objective: In this study we aimed to identify the most commonly used upper limb outcome measures in intervention studies after stroke and to describe domains covered according to ICF, how measures are combined, and how their use varies geographically and over time.

Methods: Pubmed, CinHAL, and PeDRO databases were searched for upper limb intervention studies in stroke according to PRISMA guidelines and477 studies were included.

Results: In studies 48different outcome measures were found. Only 15 of these outcome measures were used in more than 5% of the studies. The Fugl-Meyer Test (FMT)was the most commonly used measure (in 36% of studies). Commonly used measures covered ICF domains of body function and activity to varying extents. Most studies (72%) combined multiple outcome measures: the FMT was often combined with the Motor Activity Log (MAL), the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Action Research Arm Test, but infrequently combined with the Motor Assessment Scale or the Nine Hole Peg Test. Key components of manual dexterity such as selective finger movements were rarely measured. Frequency of use increased over a twelve-year period for the FMT and for assessments of kinematics, whereas other measures, such as the MAL and the Jebsen Taylor Hand Test showed decreased use over time. Use varied largely between countries showing low international consensus.

Conclusions: The results showed a large diversity of outcome measures used across studies. However, a growing number of studies used the FMT, a neurological test with good psychometric properties. For thorough assessment the FMT needs to be combined with functional measures. These findings illustrate the need for strategies to build international consensus on appropriate outcome measures for upper limb function after stroke.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: PGL owns shares in Aggero MedTech AB, a company commercializing a measurement instrument for spasticity. MAM and PGL have patented a method for measurement of manual dexterity (EP2659835A1). This does not alter the authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1. Flow-chart illustrating search strategy and…
Fig 1. Flow-chart illustrating search strategy and number of studies selected.
Fig 2. Frequency of use of different…
Fig 2. Frequency of use of different upper limb outcome measures (in % of studies).
Frequency of use varies widely, between 36% and 1%. Only 15 measures were used in more than 5% of studies (dotted line). The 48 outcome measures are in alphabetic order: AMAT = Arm Motor Ability Test, ARAT = Action Research Arm Test, Ashworth = Ashworth scale, BBT = Box and Blocks Test, CAHAI = Chedoke Arm Hand Inventory, CMSA = Chedoke McMaster Stroke Assessment, COPM = Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, DAS = Disability Assessment Scale, DTI = Diffusion Tensor Imaging, EMG = Electromyography, FAT = Frenchay Arm Test, FC = Force Control, fMRI = Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, FMT = Fugl-Meyer Test, FTHUE = Functional Test for the Hemiplegic Upper Extremity, FTT = Finger Tapping Test, GOT = Grating Orientation Task, GRT = Grasp Release Test, HFS = Hand Function Survey, HFT = Hand Function Test, JTHT = Jebsen Taylor Hand Test, KIN = Kinematics, MAL = Motor Activity Log, MAM36 = Manual Ability Measurement 36, MAS = Motor Assessment Scale, MHS = Mini Hand Score, MI = Motricity Index, MMDT = Minnesota Manual Dexterity Test, NHPT = Nine Hole Peg Test, NSA = Nottingham Sensory Assessment, PT = Pegboard Test, RELHFT = Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory Hand Function Test, RMA = Rivermead Motor Assessment, ROM = Range of Movement, SHFT = Shollerman Hand Function Test, SHPT = Sixteen Hole Peg Test, SIAS = Stroke Impairment Assessment Set, SMES = Sodring Motor Evaluation Scale, SSDI = Standardized Somatosensory Deficit Index, STEF = Simple Test for Hand Function, TDT = Tactile Discrimination Test, TMS = Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, TS = Tardieu Scale, UEFT = Upper Extremity Function Test, ULIS = Upper Limb Impairment Scale, VAS = Visual Analogue Scale, VFHT = Von-Frey Hair Test, WMFT = Wolf Motor Function Test.
Fig 3. Frequency of use (%) of…
Fig 3. Frequency of use (%) of outcome measures according to ICF domains (A, B) and advanced methods (C).
Abbreviations as in Fig 2.
Fig 4. Combination of outcome measures.
Fig 4. Combination of outcome measures.
Measures related to the ICF Activity level are listed on the horizontal, those related to ICF Body function are shown on the left-top side, and those qualified as ‘Advanced methods’ are shown on the right-top side of the triangle. A curved link (line) between two different measures indicates their combined use within a study. The thickness of the curved line represents the frequency of occurrence across studies of a given combination.
Fig 5. Increasing and decreasing frequency of…
Fig 5. Increasing and decreasing frequency of use of outcome measures.
The FMT and KIN both showed significantly increasing trends of use according to Mann-Kendall test (P

Fig 6. Frequency of use in the…

Fig 6. Frequency of use in the ten countries with most publications.

Distributions (in %…

Fig 6. Frequency of use in the ten countries with most publications.
Distributions (in % use) shown for Ashworth, Motor Activity Log (MAL), Fugl-Meyer Test (FMT) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Frequency of use of particular measures across countries varied greatly and was not homogenous. The Fugl-Meyer Test (FMT, Fig 5C) has high rates of use in most countries, except in Australia and UK, where the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT, Fig 5D) was used more often.
Fig 6. Frequency of use in the…
Fig 6. Frequency of use in the ten countries with most publications.
Distributions (in % use) shown for Ashworth, Motor Activity Log (MAL), Fugl-Meyer Test (FMT) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Frequency of use of particular measures across countries varied greatly and was not homogenous. The Fugl-Meyer Test (FMT, Fig 5C) has high rates of use in most countries, except in Australia and UK, where the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT, Fig 5D) was used more often.

References

    1. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G (2011) Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet 377: 1693–1702. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5
    1. Jørgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS (1999) Stroke. Neurologic and functional recovery the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 10: 887–906.
    1. Parker VM, Wade DT, Langton Hewer R (1986) Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int Rehabil Med 8: 69–73.
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJH (2003) Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke 34: 2181–2186. 10.1161/
    1. Nichols-Larsen DS, Clark PC, Zeringue A, Greenspan A, Blanton S (2005) Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke 36: 1480–1484. 10.1161/01.STR.0000170706.13595.4f
    1. Sullivan JE, Crowner BE, Kluding PM, Nichols D, Rose DK, Yoshida R, et al. (2013) Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: process and recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association neurology section task force. PhysTher 93: 1383–1396. 10.2522/ptj.20120492
    1. Alt Murphy M, Resteghini C, Feys P, Lamers I (2015) An overview of systematic reviews on upper extremity outcome measures after stroke. BMC Neurol 15: 29 10.1186/s12883-015-0292-6
    1. Lemmens RJM, Timmermans AAA, Janssen-Potten YJM, Smeets RJEM, Seelen HAM (2012) Valid and reliable instruments for arm-hand assessment at ICF activity level in persons with hemiplegia: a systematic review. BMC Neurol 12: 21 10.1186/1471-2377-12-21
    1. Velstra I-M, Ballert CS, Cieza A (2011) A systematic literature review of outcome measures for upper extremity function using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health as reference. PM R 3: 846–860. 10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.03.014
    1. Royal College of Physicians. National Clinical Guidelines for Stroke. 4th edition, London: 2012. Available:
    1. Stroke rehabilitation In: Canadian best practice recommendations for stroke care Clinical Practice Guidelines. In: Guideline Central [Internet]. [cited 15 Dec 2015). Available:
    1. Sivan M, O’Connor RJ, Makower S, Levesley M, Bhakta B (2011) Systematic review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of robot-assisted upper limb exercise in stroke. J Rehabil Med 43: 181–189. 10.2340/16501977-0674
    1. Jette DU, Halbert J, Iverson C, Miceli E, Shah P (2009) Use of standardized outcome measures in physical therapist practice: perceptions and applications. PhysTher 89: 125–135. 10.2522/ptj.20080234
    1. Thompson-Butel AG, Lin G, Shiner CT, McNulty PA (2015) Comparison of three tools to measure improvements in upper-limb function with poststroke therapy. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 29(4):341–8. 10.1177/1545968314547766
    1. Bushnell C, Bettger JP, Cockroft KM, Cramer SC, Edelen MO, Hanley D, et al. (2015) Chronic Stroke Outcome Measures for Motor Function Intervention Trials: Expert Panel Recommendations. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 8: S163–169. 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002098
    1. Causby R, Reed L, McDonnell M, Hillier S (2014) Use of objective psychomotor tests in health professionals. Percept Mot Skills 118: 765–804. 10.2466/25.27.PMS.118k27w2
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2008) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151: 264–269
    1. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). In: WHO [Internet]. [cited 15 Dec 2015]. Available:
    1. Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Ustün B, Stucki G (2005) ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med 37: 212–218. 10.1080/16501970510040263
    1. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S (1975) The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med 7: 13–31.
    1. Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG (1983) Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther 63: 1606–1610.
    1. Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE (2002) The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 16: 232–240.
    1. Page SJ, Levine P, Hade E (2012) Psychometric properties and administration of the wrist/hand subscales of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment in minimally impaired upper extremity hemiparesis in stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 93: 2373–2376. e5 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.06.017
    1. Lyle RC (1981) A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res 4: 483–492.
    1. Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Chiang FM, Lin PH (1998) Inter-rater reliability and validity of the action research arm test in stroke patients. Age Ageing 27: 107–113.
    1. Mandon L, Boudarham J, Robertson J, Bensmail D, Roche N, Roby-Brami A (2016) Faster Reaching in Chronic Spastic Stroke Patients Comes at the Expense of Arm-Trunk Coordination. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 30(3):209–20. 10.1177/1545968315591704
    1. Backman C, Cork S, Gibson D, Parsons J (1992) Assessment of Hand Function: The Relationship between Pegboard Dexterity and Applied Dexterity. Can J OccupTher 208–213
    1. Yancosek KE, Howell D (2009) A narrative review of dexterity assessments. J Hand Ther 22: 258–269; quiz 270. 10.1016/j.jht.2008.11.004
    1. Schmidlin E, Kaeser M, Gindrat A-D, Savidan J, Chatagny P, Badoud S, et al. (2011) Behavioral assessment of manual dexterity in non-human primates. J Vis Exp 10.3791/3258
    1. Lemon RN (2008) Descending pathways in motor control. Annu Rev Neurosci 31: 195–218. 10.1146/annurev.neuro.31.060407.125547
    1. Isa T, Kinoshita M, Nishimura Y (2013) Role of Direct vs. Indirect Pathways from the Motor Cortex to Spinal Motoneurons in the Control of Hand Dexterity. Front Neurol 4: 191 10.3389/fneur.2013.00191
    1. Meyer S, De Bruyn N, Lafosse C, Van Dijk M, Michielsen M, Thijs L, et al. (2015) Somatosensory Impairments in the Upper Limb Poststroke: Distribution and Association With Motor Function and Visuospatial Neglect. Neurorehabil Neural Repair pii: 1545968315624779 [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Pennati GV, Plantin J, Borg J, Lindberg P (2016) Normative NeuroFlexor data for detection of spasticity after stroke: a cross-sectional study. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2016 March 18;13(1):30.
    1. Lin JH, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, Wu TS, Lin RT, Chen CH, et al. (2009) Psychometric comparisons of 4 measures for assessing upper-extremity function in people with stroke. Phys Ther 89(8):840–50. 10.2522/ptj.20080285
    1. Chen HM, Chen CC, Hsueh IP, Huang SL, Hsieh CL (2009) Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference of 5 hand function tests in patients with stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 23(5):435–40. 10.1177/1545968308331146
    1. Noorkõiv M, Rodgers H, Price CI (2014) Accelerometer measurement of upper extremity movement after stroke: a systematic review of clinical studies. J Neuroeng Rehabil 11: 144 10.1186/1743-0003-11-144
    1. Nordin N, Xie SQ, Wünsche B (2014) Assessment of movement quality in robot- assisted upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review. J Neuroeng Rehabil 11: 137 10.1186/1743-0003-11-137
    1. Cirstea MC, Levin MF (2000) Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain 123 (Pt 5): 940–953.
    1. Roby-Brami A, Jacobs S, Bennis N, Levin MF (2003) Hand orientation for grasping and arm joint rotation patterns in healthy subjects and hemiparetic stroke patients. Brain Res 969: 217–229.
    1. Lindberg PG, Roche N, Robertson J, Roby-Brami A, Bussel B, Maier MA.(2012) Affected and unaffected quantitative aspects of grip force control in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Brain Res 1452: 96–107. 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.03.007
    1. Lindberg PG, Sanchez K, Ozcan F, Rannou F, Poiraudeau S, Feydy A, et al. (2015) Correlation of force control with regional spinal DTI in patients with cervical spondylosis without signs of spinal cord injury on conventional MRI. Eur Radiol 10.1007/s00330-015-3876-z
    1. Térémetz M, Colle F, Hamdoun S, Maier MA, Lindberg PG (2015) A novel method for the quantification of key components of manual dexterity after stroke. J NeuroengRehabil 12: 64 10.1186/s12984-015-0054-0
    1. Gäverth J, Eliasson A-C, Kullander K, Borg J, Lindberg PG, Forssberg H (2014) Sensitivity of the NeuroFlexor method to measure change in spasticity after treatment with botulinum toxin A in wrist and finger muscles. J Rehabil Med 46: 629–634. 10.2340/16501977-1824
    1. Rand D, Eng JJ (2015) Predicting daily use of the affected upper extremity 1 year after stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 24(2):274–83. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.07.039
    1. Alt Murphy M, Willén C, Sunnerhagen KS (2013) Responsiveness of upper extremity kinematic measures and clinical improvement during the first three months after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 27: 844–853. 10.1177/1545968313491008
    1. Bensmail D, Robertson J, Fermanian C, Roby-Brami A (2010) Botulinum toxin to treat upper-limb spasticity in hemiparetic patients: grasp strategies and kinematics of reach-to-grasp movements. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 24(2):141–51. 10.1177/1545968309347683
    1. de los Reyes-Guzmán A, Dimbwadyo-Terrer I, Trincado-Alonso F, Monasterio-Huelin F, Torricelli D, Gil-Agudo A (2014) Quantitative assessment based on kinematic measures of functional impairments during upper extremity movements: A review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 29: 719–727. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.06.013
    1. Ellis MD, Sukal T, DeMott T, Dewald JPA (2008) Augmenting clinical evaluation of hemiparetic arm movement with a laboratory-based quantitative measurement of kinematics as a function of limb loading. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 22: 321–329. 10.1177/1545968307313509
    1. Tyryshkin K, Coderre AM, Glasgow JI, Herter TM, Bagg SD, Dukelow SP, et al. (2014) A robotic object hitting task to quantify sensorimotor impairments in participants with stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil 11:47 10.1186/1743-0003-11-47
    1. Dukelow SP, Herter TM, Moore KD, Demers MJ, Glasgow JI, Bagg SD, et al. (2010) Quantitative assessment of limb position sense following stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 24(2):178–87. 10.1177/1545968309345267
    1. Lindberg PG, Skejø PHB, Rounis E, Nagy Z, Schmitz C, Wernegren H, et al. (2007) Wallerian degeneration of the corticofugal tracts in chronic stroke: a pilot study relating diffusion tensor imaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and hand function. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 21: 551–560. 10.1177/1545968307301886
    1. Auriat AM, Neva JL, Peters S, Ferris JK, Boyd LA (2015) A Review of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Multimodal Neuroimaging to Characterize Post-Stroke Neuroplasticity. Front Neurol 6: 226 10.3389/fneur.2015.00226
    1. Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe M, Anwar S, Byblow WD (2012) The PREP algorithm predicts potential for upper limb recovery after stroke. Brain 135: 2527–2535. 10.1093/brain/aws146
    1. Duncan PW, Jorgensen HS, Wade DT (2000) Outcome measures in acute stroke trials: a systematic review and some recommendations to improve practice. Stroke 31: 1429–1438.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe