Functional recovery following stroke: Capturing changes in upper-extremity function

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 240-250

  Simpson, Lisa A ^a   Eng, Janice J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Recovery of function; Rehabilitation; Responsiveness; Stroke; Systematic review; Treatment outcome; UE

Indexed keywords

ARM MOVEMENT; ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONVALESCENCE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; MOVEMENT THERAPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); TREATMENT RESPONSE;

HUMANS; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; STROKE; UPPER EXTREMITY;

EID: 84877866585     PISSN: 15459683     EISSN: 15526844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1545968312461719     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204-1217. (Pubitemid 34002973)
2. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737-745.
3. Kain ZN, MacLaren J. P less than .05: what does it really mean? Pediatrics. 2007;119:608.
4. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Lefebvre C, Scherer R. Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000001.
5. Morris SB, DeShon RP. Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independentgroups designs. Psychol Methods. 2002;7:105-125.
6. Stratford PW. Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can. 2004;56:27-30.
7. Flansbjer UB, Holmback AM, Downham D, Patten C, Lexell J. Reliability of gait performance tests in men and women with hemiparesis after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:75-82. (Pubitemid 40439461)
8. Angst F. The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011; 11:152.
9. Hozo S, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13.
10. Beebe JA, Lang CE. Relationships and responsiveness of six upper extremity function tests during the first six months of recovery after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2009;33:96-103.
11. Hsueh I, Hsieh C. Responsiveness of two upper extremity function instruments for stroke inpatients receiving rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16:617-624.
12. Lin JH, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, et al. Psychometric comparisons of 4 measures for assessing upper-extremity function in people with stroke. Phys Ther. 2009;89:840-850.
13. Rabadi MH, Rabadi FM. Comparison of the Action Research Arm Test and the Fugl-Meyer assessment as measures of upper-extremity motor weakness after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:962-966. (Pubitemid 43927566)
14. Barreca SR, Stratford PW, Masters LM, Lambert CL, Griffiths J, McBay C. Validation of three shortened versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory. Physiother Can. 2006;58:148-156.
15. Barreca SR, Stratford PW, Lambert CL, Masters LM, Streiner DL. Test-retest reliability, validity, and sensitivity of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory: a new measure of upper-limb function for survivors of stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:1616-1622. (Pubitemid 41115825)
16. Barreca SR, Stratford PW, Masters LM, Lambert CL, Griffiths J. Comparing 2 versions of the Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory with the Action Research Arm Test. Phys Ther. 2006;86:245-253. (Pubitemid 43190720)
17. Pandyan AD, Cameron M, Powell J, Stott DJ, Granat MH. Contractures in the post-stroke wrist: a pilot study of its time course of development and its association with upper limb recovery. Clin Rehabil. 2003;17:88-95. (Pubitemid 36230984)
18. Brunner IC, Skouen JS, Strand LI. Recovery of upper extremity motor function post stroke with regard to eligibility for constraint-induced movement therapy. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2011;18:248-257.
19. Au-Yeung SS, Hui-Chan CW. Predicting recovery of dextrous hand function in acute stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2009;31: 394-401.
20. Rand D, Eng JJ. Disparity between functional recovery and daily use of the upper and lower extremities during subacute stroke rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26: 76-84.
21. Roiha K, Kirveskari E, Kaste M, et al. Reorganization of the primary somatosensory cortex during stroke recovery. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122:339-345.
22. Blennerhassett JM, Avery RM, Carey LM. The test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change for the Hand Function Survey during stroke rehabilitation. Aust Occup Ther J. 2010;57:431-438.
23. Rehme AK, Fink GR, von Cramon DY, Grefkes C. The role of the contralesional motor cortex for motor recovery in the early days after stroke assessed with longitudinal FMRI. Cereb Cortex. 2011;21:756-768.
24. Filiatrault J, Arsenault AB, Dutil E, Bourbonnais D. Motor function and activities of daily living assessments: a study of three tests for persons with hemiplegia. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45:806-810.
25. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The Stroke Impact Scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131-2140. (Pubitemid 29473260)
26. Kamel A, Ghani AA, Zaiton MA, El-Motayam AS, El-Fattah DA. Health related quality of life in stroke survivors measured by the Stroke Impact Scale. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg. 2010;47:267-274.
27. Sezer N, Yavuzer G, Sivrioglu K, Basaran P, Koseoglu BF. Clinimetric properties of the Duruoz Hand Index in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:309-314. (Pubitemid 46281850)
28. Bouffioulx E, Arnould C, Thonnard JL. Satisfaction with activity and participation and its relationships with body functions, activities, or environmental factors in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92s:1404-1410.
29. Rand D, Gottlieb D, Weiss P. Recovery of patients with a combined motor and proprioception deficit during the first six weeks of post stroke rehabilitation. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 2001;18:69-87. (Pubitemid 33095136)
30. Wittenberg GF, Bastings EP, Fowlkes AM, Morgan TM, Good DC, Pons TP. Dynamic course of intracortical TMS pairedpulse responses during recovery of motor function after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:568-573. (Pubitemid 47585200)
31. Higgins J, Mayo NE, Desrosiers J, Salbach NM, Ahmed S. Upper-limb function and recovery in the acute phase poststroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42:65-76. (Pubitemid 40464159)
32. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ahmed S, et al. Disablement following stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21:258-268. (Pubitemid 29248607)
33. Desrosiers J, Malouin F, Richards C, Bourbonnais D, Rochette A, Bravo G. Comparison of changes in upper and lower extremity impairments and disabilities after stroke. Int J Rehabil Res. 2003;26:109-116. (Pubitemid 36819934)
34. Feydy A, Carlier R, Roby-Brami A, et al. Longitudinal study of motor recovery after stroke: Recruitment and focusing of brain activation. Stroke. 2002;33:1610-1617. (Pubitemid 34619967)
35. Hsu SS, Hu MH, Wang YH, Yip PK, Chiu JW, Hsieh CL. Dose-response relation between neuromuscular electrical stimulation and upper-extremity function in patients with stroke. Stroke. 2010;41:821-824.
36. Page SJ, Levine P, Leonard AC. Modified constraint-induced therapy in acute stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005;19:27-32. (Pubitemid 40261060)
37. Sun SF, Hsu CW, Sun HP, Hwang CW, Yang CL, Wang JL. Combined botulinum toxin type A with modified constraintinduced movement therapy for chronic stroke patients with upper extremity spasticity: a randomized controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:34-41.
38. Myint JM, Yuen GF, Yu TK, et al. A study of constraintinduced movement therapy in subacute stroke patients in Hong Kong. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22:112-124. (Pubitemid 351356263)
39. van der Lee JH, Wagenaar RC, Lankhorst GJ, Vogelaar TW, Deville WL, Bouter LM. Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Stroke. 1999;30:2369-2375. (Pubitemid 29517737)
40. Harris JE, Eng JJ, Miller WC, Dawson AS. A self-administered graded repetitive arm supplementary program (GRASP) improves arm function during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a multi-site randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 2009;40: 2123-2128.
41. Shindo K, Fujiwara T, Hara J, et al. Effectiveness of hybrid assistive neuromuscular dynamic stimulation therapy in patients with subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:830-837.
42. Dahl AE, Askim T, Stock R, Langorgen E, Lydersen S, Indredavik B. Short- and long-term outcome of constraint-induced movement therapy after stroke: a randomized controlled feasibility trial. Clin Rehabil. 2008;22:436-447. (Pubitemid 351833333)
43. Cacchio A, De Blasis E, De Blasis V, Santilli V, Spacca G. Mirror therapy in complex regional pain syndrome type 1 of the upper limb in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:792-799.
44. Kowalczewski J, Gritsenko V, Ashworth N, Ellaway P, Prochazka A. Upper-extremity functional electric stimulationassisted exercises on a workstation in the subacute phase of stroke recovery. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:833-839. (Pubitemid 46963224)
45. Pang MY, Harris JE, Eng JJ. A community-based upperextremity group exercise program improves motor function and performance of functional activities in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:1-9. (Pubitemid 43053296)
46. Taub E, Uswatte G, King DK, Morris D, Crago JE, Chatterjee A. A placebo-controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy for upper extremity after stroke. Stroke. 2006;37:1045-1049.
47. Wittenberg GF, Chen R, Ishii K, et al. Constraint-induced therapy in stroke: magnetic-stimulation motor maps and cerebral activation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003;17:48-57. (Pubitemid 37102027)
48. Wu CY, Chuang LL, Lin KC, Chen HC, Tsay PK. Randomized trial of distributed constraint-induced therapy versus bilateral arm training for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor control and function after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:130-139.
49. Gauthier LV, Taub E, Perkins C, Ortmann M, Mark VW, Uswatte G. Remodeling the brain: plastic structural brain changes produced by different motor therapies after stroke. Stroke. 2008;39:1520-1525.
50. Khan CM, Oesch PR, Gamper UN, Kool JP, Beer S. Potential effectiveness of three different treatment approaches to improve minimal to moderate arm and hand function after stroke: a pilot randomized clinical trial. Clin Rehabil. 2011;25:1032-1041.
51. Tariah HA, Almalty A, Sbeih Z, Al-Oraibi S, Bernhardt J, Rowe V. Constraint induced movement therapy for stroke survivors in Jordon: a home-based model. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2010;17:638-646.
52. Dromerick AW, Lang CE, Birkenmeier RL, et al. Very early constraint-induced movement during stroke rehabilitation (VECTORS): a single-center RCT. Neurology. 2009;73:195-201.
53. Church C, Price C, Pandyan AD, Huntley S, Curless R, Rodgers H. Randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation to the shoulder after acute stroke. Stroke. 2006;37:2995-3001. (Pubitemid 44900821)
54. Wu CY, Chen CL, Tsai WC, Lin KC, Chou SH. A randomized controlled trial of modified constraint-induced movement therapy for elderly stroke survivors: changes in motor impairment, daily functioning, and quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:273-278.
55. Kimberley TJ, Lewis SM, Auerbach EJ, Dorsey LL, Lojovich JM, Carey Jr. Electrical stimulation driving functional improvements and cortical changes in subjects with stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2004;154:450-460. (Pubitemid 38293735)
56. Lin KC, Chang YF, Wu CY, Chen YA. Effects of constraintinduced therapy versus bilateral arm training on motor performance, daily functions, and quality of life in stroke survivors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:441-448.
57. Lin KC, Wu CY, Liu JS, Chen YT, Hsu CJ. Constraint-induced therapy versus dose-matched control intervention to improve motor ability, basic/extended daily functions, and quality of life in stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:160-165.
58. Ertelt D, Small S, Solodkin A, et al. Action observation has a positive impact on rehabilitation of motor deficits after stroke. Neuroimage. 2007;36:T164-T173. (Pubitemid 46702737)
59. Conroy SS, Whitall J, Dipietro L, et al. Effect of gravity on robot-assisted motor training after chronic stroke: a randomized trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:1754-1761.
60. Liao WW, Wu CY, Hsieh YW, Lin KC, Chang WY. Effects of robot-assisted upper limb rehabilitation on daily function and real-world arm activity in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26:111-120.
61. Page SJ, Levin L, Hermann V, Dunning K, Levine P. Longer versus shorter daily durations of electrical stimulation during task-specific practice in moderately impaired stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:200-206.
62. Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Liao WW, Lin KC, Wu KY, Lee CY. Effects of treatment intensity in upper limb robot-assisted therapy for chronic stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:503-511.
63. Fritz SL, George SZ, Wolf SL, Light KE. Participant perception of recovery as criterion to establish importance of improvement for constraint-induced movement therapy outcome measures: a preliminary study. Phys Ther. 2007;87: 170-178. (Pubitemid 46214599)
64. Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, Dromerick AW. Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upperextremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1693-1700.
65. Wang TN, Lin KC, Wu CY, Chung CY, Pei YC, Teng YK. Validity, responsiveness, and clinically important difference of the ABILHAND questionnaire in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92:1086-1091.
66. Lin KC, Fu T, Wu CY, et al. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Stroke Impact Scale in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:486-492.
67. Lin KC, Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Chen CL, Jang Y, Liu JS. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Wolf Motor Function Test in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:429-434.
68. Fritz SL, Blanton S, Uswatte G, Taub E, Wolf SL. Minimal detectable change scores for the Wolf Motor Function Test. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:662-667.
69. Wolf SL, Thompson PA, Morris DM, et al. The EXCITE trial: attributes of the Wolf Motor Function Test in patients with subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005;19:194-205. (Pubitemid 41216295)
70. Uswatte G, Giuliani C, Winstein C, Zeringue A, Hobbs L, Wolf SL. Validity of accelerometry for monitoring real-world arm activity in patients with subacute stroke: evidence from the extremity constraint-induced therapy evaluation trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:1340-1345. (Pubitemid 44470751)
71. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Vignolo M, McCulloch K. Reliability and validity of the upper-extremity Motor Activity Log-14 for measuring real-world arm use. Stroke. 2005;36: 2493-2496. (Pubitemid 41566986)
72. Uswatte G, Taub E, Morris D, Light K, Thompson PA. The Motor Activity Log-28: assessing daily use of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. Neurology. 2006;67:1189-1194. (Pubitemid 44563826)
73. Kopp B, Kunkel A, Flor H, et al. The Arm Motor Ability Test: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of an instrument for assessing disabilities in activities of daily living. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:615-620. (Pubitemid 27259886)
74. Richards L, Stoker-Yates J, Pohl P, Wallace D, Duncan P. Reliability and validity of two tests of upper extremity motor function post-stroke. Occup Ther J Res. 2001;21: 201-219. (Pubitemid 32631945)
75. Carod-Artal FJ, Coral LF, Trizotto DS, Moreira CM. The Stroke Impact Scale 3.0: evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity of the Brazilian version. Stroke. 2008;39:2477-2484.
76. van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Knol DL, De Vet HC, Bouter LM. Clinimetric properties of the Motor Activity Log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke. 2004;35:1410.
77. van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the Action Research Arm Test and the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale in chronic stroke patients. J Rehabil Med. 2001;33:110-113. (Pubitemid 32479326)
78. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008.
79. Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:221-226. (Pubitemid 23203446)
80. Biernaskie J, Chernenko G, Corbett D. Efficacy of rehabilitative experience declines with time after focal ischemic brain injury. J Neurosci. 2004;24:1245-1254. (Pubitemid 38177031)
81. Dobkin BH, Dorsch A. The promise of mHealth: daily activity monitoring and outcome assessments by wearable sensors. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25:788-798.
82. Mokkink L, Terwee C, Knol D, 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.
83. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102-109.
84. Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:900-908. (Pubitemid 35246561)
85. Salter K, Jutai J, Teasell R, Foley N, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:315-340. (Pubitemid 40711579)
86. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, De Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34-42. (Pubitemid 44856236)
87. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinksy FD. Further evidence supporting standard error of measurement based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual change in healthrelated quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:861-873. (Pubitemid 29385600)
88. Turner D, Schunemann HJ, Griffith LE, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:28-36.
89. Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, Johannesson M, Liang MH. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:711-717. (Pubitemid 26280720)