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

Alt Murphy M, Resteghini C, Feys P, Lamers I - BMC Neurol (2015)

Bottom Line: 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 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.This overview can provide a valuable resource to assist clinicians, researchers and policy makers in selection of appropriate outcome measures.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Rehabilitation Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Per Dubbsgatan 14, 3tr, S- 413 45, Göteborg, Sweden. margit.alt-murphy@neuro.gu.se.

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.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Flowchart over the search strategy and article selection process (according to the PRISMA guidelines).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4359448&req=5

Fig1: Flowchart over the search strategy and article selection process (according to the PRISMA guidelines).

Mentions: Identification of relevant articles including initial screening of titles and abstracts, selection of relevant articles for the full-text screening and final inclusion were all performed independently by two authors. Inclusion of articles was based on the agreement between the two independent reviewers. When the decision on inclusion was not clear on the basis of the title or abstract, studies were selected for further full text screening. The references of the articles included for the full text screening were also hand searched for additional identification of relevant records, by one investigator and this list was checked by the second investigator. A flow chart of the inclusion process is displayed in Figure 1.Figure 1


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

Alt Murphy M, Resteghini C, Feys P, Lamers I - BMC Neurol (2015)

Flowchart over the search strategy and article selection process (according to the PRISMA guidelines).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4359448&req=5

Fig1: Flowchart over the search strategy and article selection process (according to the PRISMA guidelines).
Mentions: Identification of relevant articles including initial screening of titles and abstracts, selection of relevant articles for the full-text screening and final inclusion were all performed independently by two authors. Inclusion of articles was based on the agreement between the two independent reviewers. When the decision on inclusion was not clear on the basis of the title or abstract, studies were selected for further full text screening. The references of the articles included for the full text screening were also hand searched for additional identification of relevant records, by one investigator and this list was checked by the second investigator. A flow chart of the inclusion process is displayed in Figure 1.Figure 1

Bottom Line: 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 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.This overview can provide a valuable resource to assist clinicians, researchers and policy makers in selection of appropriate outcome measures.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Rehabilitation Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Per Dubbsgatan 14, 3tr, S- 413 45, Göteborg, Sweden. margit.alt-murphy@neuro.gu.se.

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.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus