So all gait studies prior to 2013 and up to now have no standarized outcome measures. Even now I see NO PROTOCOLS on this so survivors are still screwed. And even at the end they punt and suggest further studies, meaning they didn't do the research well enough to achieve the objective that should have existed. creation of protocols for gait outcome measures. THIS is why survivors need to be in charge, they would make sure all stroke research had valid objectives. Why would these outcome measures be any different than normal gait training?
Systematic review of outcome measures of walking training using electromechanical and robotic devices in patients with stroke
2013, Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Christian Geroin, PT 1*,
Christian Geroin, PT 1*,
Stefano Mazzoleni, PhD 3*,
Nicola Smania, MD 1,2,
Marialuisa Gandol, MD, PhD 1,
Donatella Bonaiuti, MD 4,
Giulio Gasperini, MD 5,
Daniele Munari, PT 1,
Patrizio Sale, MD, PhD 6,
Andreas Waldner, MD 7,
Raffaele Spidalieri, MD 8,
Federica Bovolenta, MD 9,
Alessandro Picelli, MD 1,
Federico Posteraro, MD 10,
Franco Molteni, MD 5,
Marco Franceschini, MD 6 and the Italian Robotic Neurorehabilitation Research Group (IRNRG)
From the
1 Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Centre (CRRNC), Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of Verona,
2 Neurological Rehabilitation Unit Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Integrata Verona,
3 The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa,
4 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, S. Gerardo Hospital, Monza,
5 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Ospedale Valduce, Villa Beretta, Costamasnaga, Lecco,
6 Department of Rehabilitation IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Rome,
7 Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Private Hospital Villa Melitta, Bolzano,
8 Istituto di Riabilitazione Neurologica “Madre Della Divina Prov- videnza” di Agazzi, Arezzo,
9 Medicine Rehabilitation NOCSAE Hospital AUSL of Modena, Modena and
10 Neurological Rehabilitation Unit, Auxilium Vitae Rehabilitation Center, Volterra, Italy. *Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Objective:
The aim of this systematic review was to identify appropriate selection criteria of clinical scales for future trials, starting from those most commonly reported in the literature, according to their psychometric properties and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains.
Data sources:
A computerized literature research of articles
was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINALH, Pub-Med, PsychINFO and Scopus databases.
Study selection:
Clinical trials evaluating the effects of electromechanical and robot-assisted gait training trials in stroke survivors.
Data extraction:
Fifteen independent authors performed an extensive literature review.
Data synthesis:
A total of 45 scales was identified from 27 studies involving 966 subjects. The most commonly used outcome measures were: Functional Ambulation Category (18 studies), 10-Meter Walking Test (13 studies), Motricity Index (12 studies), 6-Minute Walking Test (11 studies), Rivermead Mobility Index (8 studies) and Berg Balance Scale (8 studies). According to the ICF domains 1 outcome measure was categorized into Body Function and Structure, 5 into Activity and none into Participation.
Conclusion:
The most commonly used scales evaluated the basic components of walking. Future studies should also include instrumental evaluation. Criteria for scale selection should be based on the ICF framework, psychometric properties and patient characteristics.
From the
1 Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Centre (CRRNC), Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of Verona,
2 Neurological Rehabilitation Unit Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria Integrata Verona,
3 The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa,
4 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, S. Gerardo Hospital, Monza,
5 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Ospedale Valduce, Villa Beretta, Costamasnaga, Lecco,
6 Department of Rehabilitation IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Rome,
7 Department of Neurological Rehabilitation, Private Hospital Villa Melitta, Bolzano,
8 Istituto di Riabilitazione Neurologica “Madre Della Divina Prov- videnza” di Agazzi, Arezzo,
9 Medicine Rehabilitation NOCSAE Hospital AUSL of Modena, Modena and
10 Neurological Rehabilitation Unit, Auxilium Vitae Rehabilitation Center, Volterra, Italy. *Both authors contributed equally to this work.
Objective:
The aim of this systematic review was to identify appropriate selection criteria of clinical scales for future trials, starting from those most commonly reported in the literature, according to their psychometric properties and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains.
Data sources:
A computerized literature research of articles
was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINALH, Pub-Med, PsychINFO and Scopus databases.
Study selection:
Clinical trials evaluating the effects of electromechanical and robot-assisted gait training trials in stroke survivors.
Data extraction:
Fifteen independent authors performed an extensive literature review.
Data synthesis:
A total of 45 scales was identified from 27 studies involving 966 subjects. The most commonly used outcome measures were: Functional Ambulation Category (18 studies), 10-Meter Walking Test (13 studies), Motricity Index (12 studies), 6-Minute Walking Test (11 studies), Rivermead Mobility Index (8 studies) and Berg Balance Scale (8 studies). According to the ICF domains 1 outcome measure was categorized into Body Function and Structure, 5 into Activity and none into Participation.
Conclusion:
The most commonly used scales evaluated the basic components of walking. Future studies should also include instrumental evaluation. Criteria for scale selection should be based on the ICF framework, psychometric properties and patient characteristics.
No comments:
Post a Comment