Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26801395›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2016

Concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of the Virtual Peg Insertion Test to quantify upper limb function in patients with chronic stroke.

Bernadette C Tobler-Ammann, Eling D de Bruin, Marie-Christine Fluet, Olivier Lambercy, Rob A de Bie, Ruud H Knols

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Nine-Hole Peg Test as a manual dexterity performance measure for multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Bernadette C Tobler-AmmannDirectorate of Research and Education, Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy Research, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. bernadette.tobler@usz.ch.
Eling D de BruinDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Primary Health and Primary Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. eling.debruin@hest.ethz.ch.
Marie-Christine FluetRehabilitation Engineering Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. marie-christine.fluet@alumni.ethz.ch.
Olivier LambercyRehabilitation Engineering Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. olambercy@ethz.ch.
Rob A de BieDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Primary Health and Primary Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. ra.debie@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Ruud H KnolsDirectorate of Research and Education, Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy Research, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. ruud.knols@usz.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasuring arm and hand function of the affected side is vital in stroke rehabilitation. Therefore, the Virtual Peg Insertion Test (VPIT), an assessment combining virtual reality and haptic feedback during a goal-oriented task derived from the Nine Hole Peg Test (NHPT), was developed. This study aimed to evaluate (1) the concurrent validity of key outcome measures of the VPIT, namely the execution time and the number of dropped pegs, with the NHPT and Box and Block Test (BBT), and (2) the test-retest-reliability of these parameters together with the VPIT's additional kinetic and kinematic parameters in patients with chronic stroke. The three tests were administered on 31 chronic patients with stroke in one session (concurrent validity), and the VPIT was retested in a second session 3-7 days later (test-retest reliability). Spearman rank correlation coefficients (ρ) were calculated for assessing concurrent validity, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to determine relative reliability. Bland-Altman plots were drawn and the smallest detectable difference (SDD) was calculated to examine absolute reliability.

resultsFor the 31 included patients, 11 were able to perform the VPIT solely via use of their affected arm, whereas 20 patients also had to utilize support from their unaffected arm. For n = 31, the VPIT showed low correlations with the NHPT (ρ = 0.31 for time (Tex[s]); ρ = 0.21 for number of dropped pegs (Ndp)) and BBT (ρ = -0.23 for number of transported cubes (Ntc); ρ = -0.12 for number of dropped cubes (Ndc)). The test-retest reliability for the parameters Tex[s], mean grasping force (Fggo[N]), number of zero-crossings (Nzc[1/sgo/return) and mean collision force (Fcmean[N]) were good to high, with ICCs ranging from 0.83 to 0.94. Fair reliability could be found for Fgreturn (ICC = 0.75) and trajectory error (Etrajgo[cm]) (0.70). Poor reliability was measured for Etrajreturn[cm] (0.67) and Ndp (0.58). The SDDs were: Tex = 70.2 s, Ndp = 0.4 pegs; Fggo/return = 3.5/1.2 Newton; Nzc[1/s]go/return = 0.2/1.8 zero-crossings; Etrajgo/return = 0.5/0.8 cm; Fcmean = 0.7 Newton.

conclusionsThe VPIT is a promising upper limb function assessment for patients with stroke requiring other components of upper limb motor performance than the NHPT and BBT. The high intra-subject variation indicated that it is a demanding test for this stroke sample, which necessitates a thorough introduction to this assessment. Once familiar, the VPIT provides more objective and comprehensive measurements of upper limb function than conventional, non-computerized hand assessments.

Indexed as

AgedBiomechanical PhenomenaChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccupational TherapyPhysical Therapy ModalitiesPsychomotor PerformanceReproducibility of ResultsStrokeStroke RehabilitationTreatment OutcomeUpper ExtremityUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID26801395
PMCPMC4724098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.