Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of Modified Ashworth Scale in patients with stroke

被引:98
|
作者
Chen, Chia-Ling [1 ,2 ]
Chen, Chung-Yao [3 ,4 ]
Chen, Hsieh-Ching [5 ]
Wu, Ching-Yi [1 ,6 ]
Lin, Keh-Chung [7 ,8 ]
Hsieh, Yu-Wei [6 ]
Shen, I-Hsuan [1 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Chang Gung Mem Hosp, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, 5 Fu Hsing St, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
[2] Chang Gung Univ, Coll Med, Grad Inst Early Intervent, Taoyuan, Taiwan
[3] Chang Gung Mem Hosp, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, Keelung, Taiwan
[4] Chang Gung Univ, Coll Med, Sch Med, Taoyuan, Taiwan
[5] Natl Taipei Univ Technol, Dept Ind Engn & Management, Taipei, Taiwan
[6] Chang Gung Univ, Coll Med, Dept Occupat Therapy, Taoyuan, Taiwan
[7] Natl Taiwan Univ, Coll Med, Sch Occupat Therapy, Taipei, Taiwan
[8] Natl Taiwan Univ Hosp, Dept Phys Med & Rehabil, Div Occupat Therapy, Taipei, Taiwan
关键词
Stroke; Muscle spasticity; Minimal clinically important difference; Psychometrics; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; RELIABILITY; SPASTICITY; OUTCOMES; INTERRATER; CRITERIA; TOOLS; INDEX; TONE;
D O I
10.23736/S1973-9087.19.05545-X
中图分类号
R49 [康复医学];
学科分类号
100215 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Spasticity is a major problem in patients with stroke and influences their activities of daily living, participation, and quality of life. The Modified Ashworth Scale is widely used to assess spasticity. However, the responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences of the Modified Ashworth Scale in patients with stroke have not been explored. AIM: This study aims to examine the responsiveness and minimal clinically important differences of the Modified Ashworth Scale in patients with stroke. DESIGN: Longitudinal six-month follow-up study. SETTING: Rehabilitation wards of a tertiary hospital. POPULATION: One-hundred and fifteen patients with stroke were recruited. METHODS: All patients underwent the assessment of Modified Ashworth Scale for the upper extremity (flexors of the elbow, wrist, and fingers) and the lower extremity (hip adductor, knee flexor, and ankle plantar flexor) at baseline and 6-month follow-up. The average Modified Ashworth Scale scores of the upper and lower extremity muscles were obtained for analysis. Responsiveness of the Modified Ashworth Scale was determined using standardized mean response, and the minimal clinically important differences were determined using a distribution-based approach with Effect Sizes of 0.5 and 0.8 standard deviations. RESULTS: The responsiveness of the Modified Ashworth Scale in the upper and lower extremity muscles was marked (standardized response mean = 0.89-1.09). The minimal clinically important differences of the average Modified Ashworth Scale of Effect Sizes 0.5 and 0.8 standard deviations for the upper extremity muscles were 0.48 and 0.76, respectively, while those for the lower extremity muscles were 0.45 and 0.73, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Modified Ashworth Scale was markedly responsive in detecting the changes in muscle tone in patients with stroke. The minimal clinically important differences of the Modified Ashworth Scale reported in this study can be used by researchers and clinicians in determining whether the observed changes are clinically meaningful post-treatment or at follow-up. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The minimal clinically important differences of the Modified Ashworth Scale reported in this study will enable clinicians and researchers in determining whether changes in the muscle tone are true and clinically meaningful, and can be used as a reference for clinical decision-making. Key words: stroke, muscle spasticity, minimal clinically important difference, psychometrics
引用
收藏
页码:754 / 760
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Variability in Minimal Clinically Important Difference Calculation and Reporting in the Otolaryngology Literature
    Tripathi, Siddhant H.
    Min, Susie
    Cody, Alexander S.
    Shukla, Geet
    Houssein, Firas A.
    Howard, John S.
    Hu, Alex
    Previtera, Melissa J.
    Phillips, Katie M.
    Sedaghat, Ahmad R.
    LARYNGOSCOPE, 2024, 134 (05) : 2059 - 2069
  • [32] Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Infants and Toddlers Dermatology Quality of Life Questionnaire
    Chernyshov, Pavel V.
    Marron, Servando E.
    Koumaki, Dimitra
    Pustisek, Nives
    Manolache, Liana
    Salavastru, Carmen
    Suru, Alina
    Sendrea, Adelina
    Svyatenko, Tetiana
    Statkevych, Olha
    Boffa, Michael J.
    Grech, Sara Borg
    Zemskov, Sergii
    Kuts, Volodymyr V.
    Lishchynskyi, Pavlo
    Chernyshov, Andrii V.
    Tomas-Aragones, Lucia
    DERMATOLOGY AND THERAPY, 2023, 13 (11) : 2879 - 2893
  • [33] Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for the EQ-5D in chronic rhinosinusitis
    Hoehle, Lloyd P.
    Phillips, Katie M.
    Speth, Marlene M.
    Caradonna, David S.
    Gray, Stacey T.
    Sedaghat, Ahmad R.
    RHINOLOGY, 2019, 57 (02) : 110 - 116
  • [34] Minimal clinically important difference of the gait assessment and intervention tool for adults with stroke
    Smith, Meredith G.
    Patritti, Benjamin L.
    GAIT & POSTURE, 2022, 91 : 212 - 215
  • [35] Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Quality of Life for Patients With Low Back Pain
    Diaz-Arribas, Maria J.
    Fernandez-Serrano, Monica
    Royuela, Ana
    Kovacs, Francisco M.
    Gallego-Izquierdo, Tomas
    Ramos-Sanchez, Mabel
    Llorca-Palomera, Rosa
    Pardo-Hervas, Pedro
    Martin-Pariente, Oscar S.
    SPINE, 2017, 42 (24) : 1908 - 1916
  • [36] Estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement Measure
    Hsieh, Yu-Wei
    Wang, Chun-Hou
    Sheu, Ching-Fan
    Hsueh, I-Ping
    Hsieh, Ching-Lin
    NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR, 2008, 22 (06) : 723 - 727
  • [37] Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients
    Henrik H Lauridsen
    Jan Hartvigsen
    Claus Manniche
    Lars Korsholm
    Niels Grunnet-Nilsson
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 7
  • [38] Quality of life assessed with EQ-5D in patients undergoing glioma surgery: What is the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference?
    Sagberg, Lisa Millgard
    Jakola, Asgeir S.
    Solheim, Ole
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2014, 23 (05) : 1427 - 1434
  • [39] Minimal Clinically Important Difference
    Gatchel, Robert J.
    Lurie, Jon D.
    Mayer, Tom G.
    SPINE, 2010, 35 (19) : 1739 - 1743
  • [40] Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the Mini-BESTest in patients with Parkinson's disease
    Godi, Marco
    Arcolin, Ilaria
    Giardini, Marica
    Corna, Stefano
    Schieppati, Marco
    GAIT & POSTURE, 2020, 80 : 14 - 19