Predictive Value of Upper Extremity Outcome Measures After Stroke-A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis

Standard

Predictive Value of Upper Extremity Outcome Measures After Stroke-A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis. / Wolf, Silke; Gerloff, Christian; Backhaus, Winifried.

in: FRONT NEUROL, Jahrgang 12, 2021, S. 675255.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/ZeitungSCORING: ReviewForschung

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{67066144a2b74c559cd7237ce0fa483f,
title = "Predictive Value of Upper Extremity Outcome Measures After Stroke-A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis",
abstract = "A better understanding of motor recovery after stroke requires large-scale, longitudinal trials applying suitable assessments. Currently, there is an abundance of upper limb assessments used to quantify recovery. How well various assessments can describe upper limb function change over 1 year remains uncertain. A uniform and feasible standard would be beneficial to increase future studies' comparability on stroke recovery. This review describes which assessments are common in large-scale, longitudinal stroke trials and how these quantify the change in upper limb function from stroke onset up to 1 year. A systematic search for well-powered stroke studies identified upper limb assessments classifying motor recovery during the initial year after a stroke. A metaregression investigated the association between assessments and motor recovery within 1 year after stroke. Scores from nine common assessments and 4,433 patients were combined and transformed into a standardized recovery score. A mixed-effects model on recovery scores over time confirmed significant differences between assessments (P < 0.001), with improvement following the weeks after stroke present when measuring recovery using the Action Research Arm Test (β = 0.013), Box and Block test (β = 0.011), Fugl-Meyer Assessment (β = 0.007), or grip force test (β = 0.023). A last-observation-carried-forward analysis also highlighted the peg test (β = 0.017) and Rivermead Assessment (β = 0.011) as additional, valuable long-term outcome measures. Recovery patterns and, thus, trial outcomes are dependent on the assessment implemented. Future research should include multiple common assessments and continue data collection for a full year after stroke to facilitate the consensus process on assessments measuring upper limb recovery.",
author = "Silke Wolf and Christian Gerloff and Winifried Backhaus",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2021 Wolf, Gerloff and Backhaus.",
year = "2021",
doi = "10.3389/fneur.2021.675255",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "675255",
journal = "FRONT NEUROL",
issn = "1664-2295",
publisher = "Frontiers Research Foundation",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Predictive Value of Upper Extremity Outcome Measures After Stroke-A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis

AU - Wolf, Silke

AU - Gerloff, Christian

AU - Backhaus, Winifried

N1 - Copyright © 2021 Wolf, Gerloff and Backhaus.

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - A better understanding of motor recovery after stroke requires large-scale, longitudinal trials applying suitable assessments. Currently, there is an abundance of upper limb assessments used to quantify recovery. How well various assessments can describe upper limb function change over 1 year remains uncertain. A uniform and feasible standard would be beneficial to increase future studies' comparability on stroke recovery. This review describes which assessments are common in large-scale, longitudinal stroke trials and how these quantify the change in upper limb function from stroke onset up to 1 year. A systematic search for well-powered stroke studies identified upper limb assessments classifying motor recovery during the initial year after a stroke. A metaregression investigated the association between assessments and motor recovery within 1 year after stroke. Scores from nine common assessments and 4,433 patients were combined and transformed into a standardized recovery score. A mixed-effects model on recovery scores over time confirmed significant differences between assessments (P < 0.001), with improvement following the weeks after stroke present when measuring recovery using the Action Research Arm Test (β = 0.013), Box and Block test (β = 0.011), Fugl-Meyer Assessment (β = 0.007), or grip force test (β = 0.023). A last-observation-carried-forward analysis also highlighted the peg test (β = 0.017) and Rivermead Assessment (β = 0.011) as additional, valuable long-term outcome measures. Recovery patterns and, thus, trial outcomes are dependent on the assessment implemented. Future research should include multiple common assessments and continue data collection for a full year after stroke to facilitate the consensus process on assessments measuring upper limb recovery.

AB - A better understanding of motor recovery after stroke requires large-scale, longitudinal trials applying suitable assessments. Currently, there is an abundance of upper limb assessments used to quantify recovery. How well various assessments can describe upper limb function change over 1 year remains uncertain. A uniform and feasible standard would be beneficial to increase future studies' comparability on stroke recovery. This review describes which assessments are common in large-scale, longitudinal stroke trials and how these quantify the change in upper limb function from stroke onset up to 1 year. A systematic search for well-powered stroke studies identified upper limb assessments classifying motor recovery during the initial year after a stroke. A metaregression investigated the association between assessments and motor recovery within 1 year after stroke. Scores from nine common assessments and 4,433 patients were combined and transformed into a standardized recovery score. A mixed-effects model on recovery scores over time confirmed significant differences between assessments (P < 0.001), with improvement following the weeks after stroke present when measuring recovery using the Action Research Arm Test (β = 0.013), Box and Block test (β = 0.011), Fugl-Meyer Assessment (β = 0.007), or grip force test (β = 0.023). A last-observation-carried-forward analysis also highlighted the peg test (β = 0.017) and Rivermead Assessment (β = 0.011) as additional, valuable long-term outcome measures. Recovery patterns and, thus, trial outcomes are dependent on the assessment implemented. Future research should include multiple common assessments and continue data collection for a full year after stroke to facilitate the consensus process on assessments measuring upper limb recovery.

U2 - 10.3389/fneur.2021.675255

DO - 10.3389/fneur.2021.675255

M3 - SCORING: Review article

C2 - 34177780

VL - 12

SP - 675255

JO - FRONT NEUROL

JF - FRONT NEUROL

SN - 1664-2295

ER -