Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, Preeti Raghavan, Jessica Pruente, Daniel Moon, Cassandra M List, Joseph Edward Hornyak, Fatma Gul, Supreet Deshpande, Susan Biffl, Zainab Al Lawati, Abraham Alfaro
{"title":"AAPM&R consensus guidance on spasticity assessment and management.","authors":"Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, Preeti Raghavan, Jessica Pruente, Daniel Moon, Cassandra M List, Joseph Edward Hornyak, Fatma Gul, Supreet Deshpande, Susan Biffl, Zainab Al Lawati, Abraham Alfaro","doi":"10.1002/pmrj.13211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) conducted a comprehensive review in 2021 to identify opportunities for enhancing the care of adult and pediatric patients with spasticity. A technical expert panel (TEP) was convened to develop consensus-based practice recommendations aimed at addressing gaps in spasticity care.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop consensus-based practice recommendations to identify and address gaps in spasticity care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Spasticity TEP engaged in a 16-month virtual meeting process, focusing on formulating search terms, refining research questions, and conducting a structured evidence review. Evidence quality was assessed by the AAPM&R Evidence, Quality and Performance Committee (EQPC), and a modified Delphi process was employed to achieve consensus on recommendation statements and evidence grading. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) guided the rating of individual studies and the strength of recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The TEP approved five recommendations for spasticity management and five best practices for assessment and management, with one recommendation unable to be graded due to evidence limitations. Best practices were defined as widely accepted components of care, while recommendations required structured evidence reviews and grading. The consensus guidance statement represents current best practices and evidence-based treatment options, intended for use by PM&R physicians caring for patients with spasticity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This consensus guidance provides clinicians with practical recommendations for spasticity assessment and management based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. Clinical judgment should be exercised, and recommendations tailored to individual patient needs, preferences, and risk profiles. The accompanying table summarizes the best practice recommendations for spasticity assessment and management, reflecting principles with little controversy in care delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":20354,"journal":{"name":"PM&R","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PM&R","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13211","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) conducted a comprehensive review in 2021 to identify opportunities for enhancing the care of adult and pediatric patients with spasticity. A technical expert panel (TEP) was convened to develop consensus-based practice recommendations aimed at addressing gaps in spasticity care.
Objective: To develop consensus-based practice recommendations to identify and address gaps in spasticity care.
Methods: The Spasticity TEP engaged in a 16-month virtual meeting process, focusing on formulating search terms, refining research questions, and conducting a structured evidence review. Evidence quality was assessed by the AAPM&R Evidence, Quality and Performance Committee (EQPC), and a modified Delphi process was employed to achieve consensus on recommendation statements and evidence grading. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) guided the rating of individual studies and the strength of recommendations.
Results: The TEP approved five recommendations for spasticity management and five best practices for assessment and management, with one recommendation unable to be graded due to evidence limitations. Best practices were defined as widely accepted components of care, while recommendations required structured evidence reviews and grading. The consensus guidance statement represents current best practices and evidence-based treatment options, intended for use by PM&R physicians caring for patients with spasticity.
Conclusion: This consensus guidance provides clinicians with practical recommendations for spasticity assessment and management based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. Clinical judgment should be exercised, and recommendations tailored to individual patient needs, preferences, and risk profiles. The accompanying table summarizes the best practice recommendations for spasticity assessment and management, reflecting principles with little controversy in care delivery.
期刊介绍：
Topics covered include acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders and pain, neurologic conditions involving the central and peripheral nervous systems, rehabilitation of impairments associated with disabilities in adults and children, and neurophysiology and electrodiagnosis. PM&R emphasizes principles of injury, function, and rehabilitation, and is designed to be relevant to practitioners and researchers in a variety of medical and surgical specialties and rehabilitation disciplines including allied health.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
