Accuracy and Reliability of Remote Categorization of Upper Limb Outcome After Stroke.

Neurorehabilitation and neural repair Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-15 DOI:10.1177/15459683241231272
Harry T Jordan, Cathy M Stinear
{"title":"Accuracy and Reliability of Remote Categorization of Upper Limb Outcome After Stroke.","authors":"Harry T Jordan, Cathy M Stinear","doi":"10.1177/15459683241231272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is an increasing need for motor assessments after stroke that can be performed quickly and remotely. The Fast Outcome Categorization of the Upper Limb after Stroke-4 (FOCUS-4) assessment remotely classifies upper limb outcome into 1 of 4 categories after stroke and was developed via retrospective analysis of Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) scores.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy and reliability of FOCUS-4 assessments for categorizing upper limb outcome after stroke when administered remotely during a videocall compared to an in-person ARAT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from 26 participants at 3 months post-stroke (3M), 27 participants at 6 months post-stroke (6M), and 56 participants at the chronic stage of stroke (>6M). Participants performed an in-person ARAT and a remote FOCUS-4 assessment administered during a videocall, and accuracy was evaluated by comparing the upper limb outcome categories. Participants at the chronic stage of stroke also performed a second remote FOCUS-4 assessment to assess between-day reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall accuracy of the remote FOCUS-4 assessment was 88% at 3M and 96% at 6M. Overall accuracy of the first and second remote FOCUS-4 assessments at the chronic stage was 75% and 79%, respectively. Reliability of the FOCUS-4 assessment at the chronic stage was 82%. The remote FOCUS-4 assessment was most accurate and reliable for participants with mild or severe upper limb functional impairment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The remote FOCUS-4 assessment has potential to classify upper limb functional capacity or to screen possible participants for stroke trials, but external validation is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":94158,"journal":{"name":"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair","volume":" ","pages":"167-175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10943605/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683241231272","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is an increasing need for motor assessments after stroke that can be performed quickly and remotely. The Fast Outcome Categorization of the Upper Limb after Stroke-4 (FOCUS-4) assessment remotely classifies upper limb outcome into 1 of 4 categories after stroke and was developed via retrospective analysis of Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) scores.

Objective: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy and reliability of FOCUS-4 assessments for categorizing upper limb outcome after stroke when administered remotely during a videocall compared to an in-person ARAT.

Methods: Data were collected from 26 participants at 3 months post-stroke (3M), 27 participants at 6 months post-stroke (6M), and 56 participants at the chronic stage of stroke (>6M). Participants performed an in-person ARAT and a remote FOCUS-4 assessment administered during a videocall, and accuracy was evaluated by comparing the upper limb outcome categories. Participants at the chronic stage of stroke also performed a second remote FOCUS-4 assessment to assess between-day reliability.

Results: Overall accuracy of the remote FOCUS-4 assessment was 88% at 3M and 96% at 6M. Overall accuracy of the first and second remote FOCUS-4 assessments at the chronic stage was 75% and 79%, respectively. Reliability of the FOCUS-4 assessment at the chronic stage was 82%. The remote FOCUS-4 assessment was most accurate and reliable for participants with mild or severe upper limb functional impairment.

Conclusions: The remote FOCUS-4 assessment has potential to classify upper limb functional capacity or to screen possible participants for stroke trials, but external validation is required.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中风后上肢预后远程分类的准确性和可靠性
背景:人们越来越需要能够快速、远程进行的中风后运动评估。脑卒中后上肢快速结果分类-4(FOCUS-4)评估可远程将脑卒中后上肢结果分为 4 个类别中的 1 个:本研究旨在前瞻性地评估 FOCUS-4 评估对中风后上肢预后分类的准确性和可靠性:收集了 26 名中风后 3 个月(3M)、27 名中风后 6 个月(6M)和 56 名中风慢性期(>6M)参与者的数据。参与者在现场进行了 ARAT 评估,并在视频通话中进行了远程 FOCUS-4 评估,通过比较上肢结果类别来评估准确性。中风慢性期的参与者还进行了第二次远程 FOCUS-4 评估,以评估日间可靠性:结果:远程 FOCUS-4 评估的总体准确率在 3M 时为 88%,6M 时为 96%。在慢性阶段,第一次和第二次远程 FOCUS-4 评估的总体准确率分别为 75% 和 79%。慢性期 FOCUS-4 评估的可靠性为 82%。对于有轻度或重度上肢功能障碍的参与者来说,远程 FOCUS-4 评估的准确性和可靠性最高:结论:远程 FOCUS-4 评估具有对上肢功能能力进行分类或筛选可能参加卒中试验的参与者的潜力,但还需要外部验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
2024 Reviewer Thank You. Clinical Relevance of the Tonic Stretch Reflex Threshold and μ as Measures of Upper Limb Spasticity and Motor Impairment After Stroke. Early Phase Multiple Sclerosis Patients Present Substantial Deficits in Physical-, Cognitive-, and Patient-reported Outcomes Compared to Matched Healthy Controls. High Intensity Interval Training POst-STroke (HIIT-POST): Perspectives of People Living With Stroke and Health Professionals. Talking While Walking After Concussion: Acute Effects of Concussion on Speech Pauses and Gait Speed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1