Minimal clinically important difference for the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity in convalescent stroke patients with moderate to severe hemiparesis

Shogo Hiragami, Yu Inoue, Kazuhiro Harada, Shogo Hiragami, Yu Inoue, Kazuhiro Harada

Abstract

[Purpose] To estimate the minimal clinically important difference for the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity by using anchor-based methods in stroke patients with moderate to severe hemiparesis. [Participants and Methods] Fourteen patients who were hospitalized in a convalescent phase rehabilitation ward were included in this study. Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity was used to assess the impairment prior to intervention and at follow-up (six weeks later). Participants were asked to evaluate the degree of improvement of paresis of the upper extremity using the global rating of change scale at follow-up. The mean change in Fugl-Meyer assessment scores in the group of patients who answered "a little better, meaningful in daily life" in the global rating of change scale was considered as the minimal clinically important difference. [Results] The mean post-onset period of participants for analysis was 49.4 days. The minimal clinically important difference of the Fugl-Meyer assessment scores were 12.4 (upper extremity), 5.6 (upper arm), and 4.9 (wrist/hand). [Conclusion] A score of 12.4 in the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity is likely to be perceived as meaningful in stroke patients with moderate to severe hemiparesis.

Keywords: Fugl-Meyer assessment; Minimal clinically important difference; Stroke.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. FundingThe authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the JSPS KAKENHI [grant number JP17K12875].

2019©by the Society of Physical Therapy Science. Published by IPEC Inc.

References

    1. Hatem SM, Saussez G, Della Faille M, et al. : Rehabilitation of motor function after stroke: a multiple systematic review focused on techniques to stimulate upper extremity recovery. Front Hum Neurosci, 2016, 10: 442.
    1. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jääskö L, Leyman I, et al. : The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med, 1975, 7: 13–31.
    1. 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: 232–240.
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH: Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials, 1989, 10: 407–415.
    1. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. : Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J, 2007, 7: 541–546.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. : Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol, 2008, 61: 102–109.
    1. Hsieh YW, Wang CH, Wu SC, et al. : Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 2007, 21: 233–238.
    1. Page SJ, Fulk GD, Boyne P: Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer Scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke. Phys Ther, 2012, 92: 791–798.
    1. Arya KN, Verma R, Garg RK: Estimating the minimal clinically important difference of an upper extremity recovery measure in subacute stroke patients. Top Stroke Rehabil, 2011, 18: 599–610.
    1. Schulz CH, Hersch GI, Foust JL, et al. : Identifying occupational performance barriers of stroke survivors: utilization of a home assessment. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr, 2012, 30: 109–123.
    1. Hiragami S, Inoue Y, Sato Y, et al.: The effect of mirror therapy on finger motor dysfunction after stroke. Phys Ther Jpn, 2012, 39: 330–337 (in Japanese).
    1. Brunnstrom S: Motor testing procedures in hemiplegia: based on sequential recovery stages. Phys Ther, 1966, 46: 357–375.
    1. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res, 1975, 12: 189–198.
    1. Goldstein LB, Bertels C, Davis JN: Interrater reliability of the NIH stroke scale. Arch Neurol, 1989, 46: 660–662.
    1. Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, et al. : Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2008, 89: 1693–1700.
    1. Hiragami S, Inoue Y, Sato Y, et al.: Reliability and validity of the global rating of change scale of upper extremity function in stroke patients (in Japanese) Jpn Occup Ther Res, 2012, 31: 224–232.
    1. Cohen J: A power primer. Psychol Bull, 1992, 112: 155–159.
    1. Amano S, Umeji A, Uchita A, et al. : Clinimetric properties of the Fugl-Meyer assessment with adapted guidelines for the assessment of arm function in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil, 2018, 25: 500–508.
    1. Kim H, Her J, Ko J, et al. : Reliability, concurrent validity, and responsiveness of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) for hemiplegic patients. J Phys Ther Sci, 2012, 24: 893–899.
    1. Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Horner RD, et al. : Similar motor recovery of upper and lower extremities after stroke. Stroke, 1994, 25: 1181–1188.
    1. Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matchar D, et al. : Measurement of motor recovery after stroke. Outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke, 1992, 23: 1084–1089.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa