A scoping review on examination approaches for identifying tactile deficits at the upper extremity in individuals with stroke.

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-06-08 DOI:10.1186/s12984-024-01397-8
Arco P Paul, Karan Nayak, Lindsey C Sydnor, Nahid Kalantaryardebily, Kevin M Parcetich, Daniel G Miner, Q Eileen Wafford, Jane E Sullivan, Netta Gurari
{"title":"A scoping review on examination approaches for identifying tactile deficits at the upper extremity in individuals with stroke.","authors":"Arco P Paul, Karan Nayak, Lindsey C Sydnor, Nahid Kalantaryardebily, Kevin M Parcetich, Daniel G Miner, Q Eileen Wafford, Jane E Sullivan, Netta Gurari","doi":"10.1186/s12984-024-01397-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Accurate perception of tactile stimuli is essential for performing and learning activities of daily living. Through this scoping review, we sought to summarize existing examination approaches for identifying tactile deficits at the upper extremity in individuals with stroke. The goal was to identify current limitations and future research needs for designing more comprehensive examination tools.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework and the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A database search for tactile examination approaches at the upper extremity of individuals with stroke was conducted using Medline (Ovid), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (Ebsco), Scopus (Elsevier), PsycInfo (Ebsco), and Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global. Original research and review articles that involved adults (18 years or older) with stroke, and performed tactile examinations at the upper extremity were eligible for inclusion. Data items extracted from the selected articles included: if the examination was behavioral in nature and involved neuroimaging, the extent to which the arm participated during the examination, the number of possible outcomes of the examination, the type(s) of tactile stimulation equipment used, the location(s) along the arm examined, the peripheral nerves targeted for examination, and if any comparison was made with the non-paretic arm or with the arms of individuals who are neurotypical.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria and were accepted in this review. Most examination approaches were behavioral in nature and involved self-reporting of whether a tactile stimulus was felt while the arm remained passive (i.e., no volitional muscle activity). Typically, the number of possible outcomes with these behavioral approaches were limited (2-3), whereas the neuroimaging approaches had many more possible outcomes ( <math><mrow><mo>></mo> <mn>15</mn></mrow> </math> ). Tactile examinations were conducted mostly at the distal locations along the arm (finger or hand) without targeting any specific peripheral nerve. Although a majority of articles compared paretic and non-paretic arms, most did not compare outcomes to a control group of individuals who are neurotypical.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our findings noted that most upper extremity tactile examinations are behavioral approaches, which are subjective in nature, lack adequate resolution, and are insufficient to identify the underlying neural mechanisms of tactile deficits. Also, most examinations are administered at distal locations of the upper extremity when the examinee's arm is relaxed (passive). Further research is needed to develop better tactile examination tools that combine behavioral responses and neurophysiological outcomes, and allow volitional tactile exploration. Approaches that include testing of multiple body locations/nerves along the upper extremity, provide higher resolution of outcomes, and consider normative comparisons with individuals who are neurotypical may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the tactile deficits occurring following a stroke.</p>","PeriodicalId":16384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11162071/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-024-01397-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Accurate perception of tactile stimuli is essential for performing and learning activities of daily living. Through this scoping review, we sought to summarize existing examination approaches for identifying tactile deficits at the upper extremity in individuals with stroke. The goal was to identify current limitations and future research needs for designing more comprehensive examination tools.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework and the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A database search for tactile examination approaches at the upper extremity of individuals with stroke was conducted using Medline (Ovid), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (Ebsco), Scopus (Elsevier), PsycInfo (Ebsco), and Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global. Original research and review articles that involved adults (18 years or older) with stroke, and performed tactile examinations at the upper extremity were eligible for inclusion. Data items extracted from the selected articles included: if the examination was behavioral in nature and involved neuroimaging, the extent to which the arm participated during the examination, the number of possible outcomes of the examination, the type(s) of tactile stimulation equipment used, the location(s) along the arm examined, the peripheral nerves targeted for examination, and if any comparison was made with the non-paretic arm or with the arms of individuals who are neurotypical.

Results: Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria and were accepted in this review. Most examination approaches were behavioral in nature and involved self-reporting of whether a tactile stimulus was felt while the arm remained passive (i.e., no volitional muscle activity). Typically, the number of possible outcomes with these behavioral approaches were limited (2-3), whereas the neuroimaging approaches had many more possible outcomes ( > 15 ). Tactile examinations were conducted mostly at the distal locations along the arm (finger or hand) without targeting any specific peripheral nerve. Although a majority of articles compared paretic and non-paretic arms, most did not compare outcomes to a control group of individuals who are neurotypical.

Discussion: Our findings noted that most upper extremity tactile examinations are behavioral approaches, which are subjective in nature, lack adequate resolution, and are insufficient to identify the underlying neural mechanisms of tactile deficits. Also, most examinations are administered at distal locations of the upper extremity when the examinee's arm is relaxed (passive). Further research is needed to develop better tactile examination tools that combine behavioral responses and neurophysiological outcomes, and allow volitional tactile exploration. Approaches that include testing of multiple body locations/nerves along the upper extremity, provide higher resolution of outcomes, and consider normative comparisons with individuals who are neurotypical may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the tactile deficits occurring following a stroke.

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
关于识别中风患者上肢触觉障碍的检查方法的范围综述。
目的:准确感知触觉刺激对于进行和学习日常生活活动至关重要。通过此次范围综述,我们试图总结现有的检查方法,以识别中风患者上肢的触觉障碍。目的是找出当前的局限性和未来的研究需求,以设计出更全面的检查工具:方法:根据乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)的方法框架和范围界定综述(PRISMA-ScR)指南进行了范围界定综述。使用 Medline (Ovid)、The Cochrane Library (Wiley)、CINAHL Plus with Full Text (Ebsco)、Scopus (Elsevier)、PsycInfo (Ebsco) 和 Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global 对中风患者上肢触觉检查方法进行了数据库检索。涉及中风成人(18 岁或以上)并在上肢进行触觉检查的原创研究文章和综述文章均可纳入。从所选文章中提取的数据项包括:检查是否属于行为性质并涉及神经影像学、检查过程中手臂的参与程度、检查可能产生的结果数量、使用的触觉刺激设备类型、沿手臂检查的位置、检查的目标周围神经,以及是否与非瘫痪手臂或神经畸形者的手臂进行了比较:共有 22 篇文章符合纳入标准,并被本综述采纳。大多数检查方法都是行为性的,涉及自我报告在手臂保持被动状态(即肌肉无自主活动)时是否感受到触觉刺激。通常情况下,这些行为检查方法可能出现的结果数量有限(2-3 个),而神经影像学检查方法可能出现的结果数量较多(> 15 个)。触觉检查大多在手臂远端(手指或手掌)进行,不针对任何特定的外周神经。虽然大多数文章都对瘫痪和非瘫痪手臂进行了比较,但大多数文章都没有将结果与神经畸形的对照组进行比较:讨论:我们的研究结果表明,大多数上肢触觉检查都是行为检查,这种检查具有主观性,缺乏足够的分辨率,不足以确定触觉障碍的潜在神经机制。此外,大多数检查都是在受检者手臂放松(被动)时在上肢远端位置进行的。需要进一步研究开发更好的触觉检查工具,将行为反应和神经生理学结果结合起来,并允许自愿的触觉探索。包括对上肢多个身体位置/神经进行测试、提供更高分辨率的结果并考虑与神经畸形者进行常模比较的方法,可以更全面地了解中风后出现的触觉障碍。
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
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 工程技术-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
3.90%
发文量
122
审稿时长
24 months
期刊介绍: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation considers manuscripts on all aspects of research that result from cross-fertilization of the fields of neuroscience, biomedical engineering, and physical medicine & rehabilitation.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of synergy extrapolation and static optimization for estimating multiple unmeasured muscle activations during walking. Immersive virtual reality for learning exoskeleton-like virtual walking: a feasibility study. Instrumented assessment of lower and upper motor neuron signs in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using robotic manipulation: an explorative study. Rest the brain to learn new gait patterns after stroke. Effects of virtual reality rehabilitation after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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