http://nnr.sagepub.com/content/29/10/933?etoc
- Susan Hillier, PhD1⇑
- Maarten Immink, PhD1
- Dominic Thewlis, PhD1
- Susan Hillier, International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, University of South Australia, City East Campus, North Tce, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia. Email: Susan.hillier@unisa.edu.au
Abstract
Proprioception is a vital aspect of motor
control and when degraded or lost can have a profound impact on function
in diverse
clinical populations. This systematic review aimed
to identify clinically related tools to measure proprioceptive acuity,
to classify the construct(s) underpinning the
tools, and to report on the clinimetric properties of the tools. We
searched
key databases with the pertinent search terms, and
from an initial list of 935 articles, we identified 57 of relevance.
These
articles described 32 different tools or methods to
quantify proprioception. There was wide variation in methods, the
joints
able to be tested, and the populations sampled. The
predominant construct was active or passive joint position detection,
followed by passive motion detection and motion
direction discrimination. The clinimetric properties were mostly poorly
evaluated
or reported. The Rivermead Assessment of
Somatosensory Perception was generally considered to be a valid and
reliable tool
but with low precision; other tools with higher
precision are potentially not clinically feasible. Clinicians and
clinical
researchers can use the summary tables to make more
informed decisions about which tool to use to match their predominant
requirements. Further discussion and research is
needed to produce measures of proprioception that have improved validity
and utility.
I wish researchers would understand that results from tests done while subjects are concentrating fiercely are not good predictors of proprioception when a subject's attention is divided.
ReplyDeleteHow dare you offer advice to these researchers. Such blasphemy.
ReplyDelete