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

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).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig2: 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).

Mentions: In total, 53 different upper extremity related OM were included in the reviews, 31 were included in at least two reviews and eight in five or more studies (Table 2, Figure 2). Eight reviews provided sufficient information of the OM regarding psychometric properties (Table 2). From those eight reviews, 13 OM were identified that met the standards and criteria set for the psychometric properties by the authors of the reviews. The extracted information on psychometric properties and clinical utility as reported in the reviews is summarized in Tables 3 and 4. This final set of OM comprised five measures primarily targeting impairments of body functions and eight assessing limitations of activities. These OM cover a variety of OM assessing gross and fine motor function, muscle strength, objective movement analysis, dexterity, functional daily activities as well as self-reported arm and hand function. The detailed information on standards and criteria used in the reviews are summarized in Table 5.Figure 2


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

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

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).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig2: 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).
Mentions: In total, 53 different upper extremity related OM were included in the reviews, 31 were included in at least two reviews and eight in five or more studies (Table 2, Figure 2). Eight reviews provided sufficient information of the OM regarding psychometric properties (Table 2). From those eight reviews, 13 OM were identified that met the standards and criteria set for the psychometric properties by the authors of the reviews. The extracted information on psychometric properties and clinical utility as reported in the reviews is summarized in Tables 3 and 4. This final set of OM comprised five measures primarily targeting impairments of body functions and eight assessing limitations of activities. These OM cover a variety of OM assessing gross and fine motor function, muscle strength, objective movement analysis, dexterity, functional daily activities as well as self-reported arm and hand function. The detailed information on standards and criteria used in the reviews are summarized in Table 5.Figure 2

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