An overview of systematic reviews on upper extremity outcome measures after stroke

Margit Alt Murphy, Carol Resteghini, Peter Feys, Ilse Lamers, Margit Alt Murphy, Carol Resteghini, Peter Feys, Ilse Lamers

Abstract

Background: Although use of standardized and scientifically sound outcome measures is highly encouraged in clinical practice and research, there is still no clear recommendation on which tools should be preferred for upper extremity assessment after stroke. As the aims, objectives and methodology of the existing reviews of the upper extremity outcome measures can vary, there is a need to bring together the evidence from existing multiple reviews. The purpose of this review was to provide an overview of evidence of the psychometric properties and clinical utility of upper extremity outcome measures for use in stroke, by systematically evaluating and summarizing findings from systematic reviews.

Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was performed including systematic reviews from 2004 to February 2014. A methodological quality appraisal of the reviews was performed using the AMSTAR-tool.

Results: From 13 included systematic reviews, 53 measures were identified of which 13 met the standardized criteria set for the psychometric properties. The strongest level of measurement quality and clinical utility was demonstrated for Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Action Research Arm Test, Box and Block Test, Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory, Wolf Motor Function Test and ABILHAND.

Conclusions: This overview of systematic reviews provides a comprehensive systematic synthesis of evidence on which outcome measures demonstrate a high level of measurement quality and clinical utility and which can be considered as most suitable for upper extremity assessment after stroke. This overview can provide a valuable resource to assist clinicians, researchers and policy makers in selection of appropriate outcome measures.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart over the search strategy and article selection process (according to the PRISMA guidelines).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overview of outcome measures (OM) included in the reviews more than once (gray bars) and the number of times the OM met the criteria set for psychometric properties as reported in the reviews (black bars).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Publication years for the primary references used in the systematic reviews and years when the reviews were performed, presented separately for every outcome measure included into the final set of measures.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Total number of references used in the reviews and number of references that were only used in one review (unique references) presented for outcome measures included into the final set.

References

    1. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377(9778):1693–702. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5.
    1. Nakayama H, Jorgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(4):394–8. doi: 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90161-9.
    1. Olsen TS. Arm and leg paresis as outcome predictors in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 1990;21(2):247–51. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.21.2.247.
    1. Persson HC, Parziali M, Danielsson A, Sunnerhagen KS. Outcome and upper extremity function within 72 hours after first occasion of stroke in an unselected population at a stroke unit: a part of the SALGOT study. BMC Neurol. 2012;12:162. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-12-162.
    1. Broeks JG, Lankhorst GJ, Rumping K, Prevo AJ. The long-term outcome of arm function after stroke: results of a follow-up study. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21(8):357–64. doi: 10.1080/096382899297459.
    1. Parker VM, Wade DT, Langton HR. Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency, and recovery. Int Rehabil Med. 1986;8(2):69–73.
    1. Nichols-Larsen DS, Clark PC, Zeringue A, Greenspan A, Blanton S. Factors influencing stroke survivors' quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke. 2005;36(7):1480–4. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000170706.13595.4f.
    1. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party . National clinical guideline for stroke. 4. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2012.
    1. Miller EL, Murray L, Richards L, Zorowitz RD, Bakas T, Clark P, et al. Comprehensive overview of nursing and interdisciplinary rehabilitation care of the stroke patient: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2010;41(10):2402–48. doi: 10.1161/STR.0b013e3181e7512b.
    1. Nationella riktlinjer för strokesjukvård 2009 - Stöd för styrning och ledning. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen; 2009.
    1. Clinical Guidlines for Stroke Management. Melbourne Australia: National Stroke Foundation; 2010.
    1. KNGF Clinical Practice Guideline for Physical Therapy in patients with stroke. Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy; V-12/2014; 2014.
    1. Sullivan JE, Crowner BE, Kluding PM, Nichols D, Rose DK, Yoshida R, et al. Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association Neurology Section Task Force. Physical therapy. 2013;93(10):1383–96. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120492.
    1. Sivan M, O'Connor RJ, Makower S, Levesley M, Bhakta B. Systematic review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of robot-assisted upper limb exercise in stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(3):181–9. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0674.
    1. Barak S, Duncan PW. Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke. NeuroRx. 2006;3(4):505–24. doi: 10.1016/j.nurx.2006.07.009.
    1. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Body Functions. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(4):191–207. doi: 10.1080/09638280400008537.
    1. Williamson P, Clarke M. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative: its role in improving Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;5:ED000041.
    1. Gargon E, Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M. The COMET initiative database: progress and activities from 2011 to 2013. Trials. 2014;15:279. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-279.
    1. Saver JL, Warach S, Janis S, Odenkirchen J, Becker K, Benavente O, et al. Standardizing the structure of stroke clinical and epidemiologic research data: the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Stroke Common Data Element (CDE) project. Stroke. 2012;43(4):967–73. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.634352.
    1. Hoffmann T, Bennett S, McKenna K, Green-Hill J, McCluskey A, Tooth L. Interventions for stroke rehabilitation: analysis of the research contained in the OTseeker evidence database. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2008;15(4):341–50. doi: 10.1310/tsr1504-341.
    1. Baker K, Cano SJ, Playford ED. Outcome measurement in stroke: a scale selection strategy. Stroke. 2011;42(6):1787–94. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.608505.
    1. Ashford S, Slade M, Malaprade F, Turner-Stokes L. Evaluation of functional outcome measures for the hemiparetic upper limb: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(10):787–95. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0276.
    1. Hillier S, Comans T, Sutton M, Amsters D, Kendall M. Development of a participatory process to address fragmented application of outcome measurement for rehabilitation in community settings. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(6):511–20. doi: 10.3109/09638280903171519.
    1. Cheung A, Weir M, Mayhew A, Kozloff N, Brown K, Grimshaw J. Overview of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of reminders in improving healthcare professional behavior. Syst Rev. 2012;1:36. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-36.
    1. Adams LV, Talbot EA, Odato K, Blunt H, Steingart KR. Interventions to improve delivery of isoniazid preventive therapy: an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:281. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-281.
    1. Becker LA, Oxman AD. Chapter 22: overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane book series. 2011.
    1. Gillespie DC, Bowen A, Chung CS, Cockburn J, Knapp P, Pollock A. Rehabilitation for post-stroke cognitive impairment: an overview of recommendations arising from systematic reviews of current evidence. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(2):120–8. doi: 10.1177/0269215514538982.
    1. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.
    1. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009.
    1. Gebruers N, Vanroy C, Truijen S, Engelborghs S, De Deyn PP. Monitoring of physical activity after stroke: a systematic review of accelerometry-based measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(2):288–97. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.025.
    1. Connell LA, Tyson SF. Clinical reality of measuring upper-limb ability in neurologic conditions: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(2):221–8. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.09.015.
    1. Croarkin E, Danoff J, Barnes C. Evidence-based rating of upper-extremity motor function tests used for people following a stroke. Phys Ther. 2004;84(1):62–74.
    1. Lemmens RJ, Timmermans AA, Janssen-Potten YJ, Smeets RJ, Seelen HA. Valid and reliable instruments for arm-hand assessment at ICF activity level in persons with hemiplegia: a systematic review. BMC Neurol. 2012;12:21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-12-21.
    1. Platz T, Eickhof C, Nuyens G, Vuadens P. Clinical scales for the assessment of spasticity, associated phenomena, and function: a systematic review of the literature. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(1–2):7–18. doi: 10.1080/09638280400014634.
    1. Simpson LA, Eng JJ. Functional recovery following stroke: capturing changes in upper-extremity function. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(3):240–50. doi: 10.1177/1545968312461719.
    1. Tse T, Douglas J, Lentin P, Carey L. Measuring participation after stroke: a review of frequently used tools. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(1):177–92. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.09.002.
    1. van Peppen RP, Hendriks HJ, van Meeteren NL, Helders PJ, Kwakkel G. The development of a clinical practice stroke guideline for physiotherapists in The Netherlands: a systematic review of available evidence. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(10):767–83. doi: 10.1080/09638280600919764.
    1. Velstra IM, Ballert CS, Cieza A. A systematic literature review of outcome measures for upper extremity function using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health as reference. Pm R. 2011;3(9):846–60. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.03.014.
    1. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(6):315–40. doi: 10.1080/09638280400008545.
    1. Lang CE, Bland MD, Bailey RR, Schaefer SY, Birkenmeier RL. Assessment of upper extremity impairment, function, and activity after stroke: foundations for clinical decision making. J Hand Ther. 2013;26(2):104–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2012.06.005.
    1. Lamers I, Kelchtermans S, Baert I, Feys P. Upper limb assessment in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of outcome measures and their psychometric properties. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(6):1184–200. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.02.023.
    1. Penta M, Tesio L, Arnould C, Zancan A, Thonnard JL. The ABILHAND questionnaire as a measure of manual ability in chronic stroke patients: Rasch-based validation and relationship to upper limb impairment. Stroke. 2001;32(7):1627–34. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.32.7.1627.
    1. Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23(4):313–9. doi: 10.1177/1545968308328727.
    1. Barman J, Uswatte G, Ghaffari T, Sokal B, Byrom E, Trinh E, et al. Sensor-enabled RFID system for monitoring arm activity: reliability and validity. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012;20(6):771–7. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2210561.
    1. Fluet MC, Lambercy O, Gassert R. Upper limb assessment using a virtual peg insertion test. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2011;2011:5975348.
    1. Sokal B, Uswatte G, Barman J, Brewer M, Byrom E, Latten J, et al. Network of movement and proximity sensors for monitoring upper-extremity motor activity after stroke: proof of principle. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):499–505. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.013.
    1. Carpinella I, Cattaneo D, Ferrarin M. Quantitative assessment of upper limb motor function in Multiple Sclerosis using an instrumented Action Research Arm Test. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:67. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-67.
    1. Hou WH, Shih CL, Chou YT, Sheu CF, Lin JH, Wu HC, et al. Development of a computerized adaptive testing system of the Fugl-Meyer motor scale in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(6):1014–20. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.12.005.
    1. Chakravarty EF, Bjorner JB, Fries JF. Improving patient reported outcomes using item response theory and computerized adaptive testing. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(6):1426–31.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다