Robert Teasell,Sarvenaz Mehrabi,Marcus Saikaley,Catherine George,Sean P Dukelow,Amber Harnett,Jamie L Fleet
{"title":"对中风后上肢康复随机对照试验中评估的上肢康复结果进行系统回顾。","authors":"Robert Teasell,Sarvenaz Mehrabi,Marcus Saikaley,Catherine George,Sean P Dukelow,Amber Harnett,Jamie L Fleet","doi":"10.1080/10749357.2024.2395723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nThe heterogeneity in outcome measures of post stroke rehabilitation trials suggests the need for consensus approach in stroke recovery measurement. To reach this aim, it is important to understand the past and current use of outcome measures in randomized control trials (RCTs) of stroke rehabilitation.\r\n\r\nOBJECTIVE\r\nTo systematically review RCTs of post stroke UE rehabilitation interventions to understand the use of UE outcome measures in research and their changes over time.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nCINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from 1960 to 1 April 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (1) were RCTs or crossovers published in English (2) ≥50% of participants were affected by stroke, 3) included adults ≥ 18 years old, and (4) applied an intervention to the hemiparetic UE as the primary objective of the study.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\n1,276 RCTs met inclusion criteria, and 112 different outcome measures were identified. Outcome measures were classified according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Outcome measures most frequently assessed body function and structure (n = 1,692), followed by activities (n = 1,572) and participation (n = 162). The most used outcome measures were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (n = 619), the modified Ashworth Scale (n = 255), Action Research Arm Test (n = 211), Wolf Motor Function Test (n = 184), and Box and Block Test (n = 178).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nUnderstanding the breadth of outcome measures that have been used over time emphasizes the need for proposed standardization of outcome measures but also the need to adjust and expand consensus recommendations based on past and ongoing research trends.","PeriodicalId":23164,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation","volume":"4 1","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review of upper extremity outcome measures assessed in randomized controlled trials of post stroke upper extremity rehabilitation over time.\",\"authors\":\"Robert Teasell,Sarvenaz Mehrabi,Marcus Saikaley,Catherine George,Sean P Dukelow,Amber Harnett,Jamie L Fleet\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10749357.2024.2395723\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nThe heterogeneity in outcome measures of post stroke rehabilitation trials suggests the need for consensus approach in stroke recovery measurement. To reach this aim, it is important to understand the past and current use of outcome measures in randomized control trials (RCTs) of stroke rehabilitation.\\r\\n\\r\\nOBJECTIVE\\r\\nTo systematically review RCTs of post stroke UE rehabilitation interventions to understand the use of UE outcome measures in research and their changes over time.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nCINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from 1960 to 1 April 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (1) were RCTs or crossovers published in English (2) ≥50% of participants were affected by stroke, 3) included adults ≥ 18 years old, and (4) applied an intervention to the hemiparetic UE as the primary objective of the study.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\n1,276 RCTs met inclusion criteria, and 112 different outcome measures were identified. Outcome measures were classified according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Outcome measures most frequently assessed body function and structure (n = 1,692), followed by activities (n = 1,572) and participation (n = 162). The most used outcome measures were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (n = 619), the modified Ashworth Scale (n = 255), Action Research Arm Test (n = 211), Wolf Motor Function Test (n = 184), and Box and Block Test (n = 178).\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nUnderstanding the breadth of outcome measures that have been used over time emphasizes the need for proposed standardization of outcome measures but also the need to adjust and expand consensus recommendations based on past and ongoing research trends.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"1-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2024.2395723\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2024.2395723","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
A systematic review of upper extremity outcome measures assessed in randomized controlled trials of post stroke upper extremity rehabilitation over time.
BACKGROUND
The heterogeneity in outcome measures of post stroke rehabilitation trials suggests the need for consensus approach in stroke recovery measurement. To reach this aim, it is important to understand the past and current use of outcome measures in randomized control trials (RCTs) of stroke rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review RCTs of post stroke UE rehabilitation interventions to understand the use of UE outcome measures in research and their changes over time.
METHODS
CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from 1960 to 1 April 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (1) were RCTs or crossovers published in English (2) ≥50% of participants were affected by stroke, 3) included adults ≥ 18 years old, and (4) applied an intervention to the hemiparetic UE as the primary objective of the study.
RESULTS
1,276 RCTs met inclusion criteria, and 112 different outcome measures were identified. Outcome measures were classified according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Outcome measures most frequently assessed body function and structure (n = 1,692), followed by activities (n = 1,572) and participation (n = 162). The most used outcome measures were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (n = 619), the modified Ashworth Scale (n = 255), Action Research Arm Test (n = 211), Wolf Motor Function Test (n = 184), and Box and Block Test (n = 178).
CONCLUSIONS
Understanding the breadth of outcome measures that have been used over time emphasizes the need for proposed standardization of outcome measures but also the need to adjust and expand consensus recommendations based on past and ongoing research trends.
期刊介绍:
Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation is the leading journal devoted to the study and dissemination of interdisciplinary, evidence-based, clinical information related to stroke rehabilitation. The journal’s scope covers physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurology, neurorehabilitation, neural engineering and therapeutics, neuropsychology and cognition, optimization of the rehabilitation system, robotics and biomechanics, pain management, nursing, physical therapy, cardiopulmonary fitness, mobility, occupational therapy, speech pathology and communication. There is a particular focus on stroke recovery, improving rehabilitation outcomes, quality of life, activities of daily living, motor control, family and care givers, and community issues.
The journal reviews and reports clinical practices, clinical trials, state-of-the-art concepts, and new developments in stroke research and patient care. Both primary research papers, reviews of existing literature, and invited editorials, are included. Sharply-focused, single-issue topics, and the latest in clinical research, provide in-depth knowledge.