ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2021
Assessment of responsiveness of four hand-related scales in stroke patients.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Objectivizing Measures of Post-Stroke Hand Rehabilitation through Multi-Disciplinary Scales.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Assessment of the responsiveness of four scales in geriatric patients with chronic neck pain.Rheumatology international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-reporting scales are commonly utilized in determining appropriate treatment strategies and follow-up in hand-related disorders. Responsiveness is described as the ability of a scale to detect clinically significant changes. We aimed to evaluate responsiveness of Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), Duruöz Hand Index (DHI), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and ABILHAND questionnaire in stroke patients. Fifty-one stroke patients were assessed in this descriptive study. Participants received conventional stroke rehabilitation program consisting of 30 sessions. Brunnstrom stages of the stroke patients were recorded before and after treatment. MHQ, DHI, DASH, ABILHAND questionnaire and patient satisfaction scores were filled in by participants before and after the conventional rehabilitation program. Significant improvements were found in MHQ, DHI, DASH, ABILHAND, patient satisfaction scores and Brunnstrom motor recovery stages after the rehabilitation program (p < 0.001). Responsiveness values of the scales were calculated as MHQ (effect size (ES) = - 0.74; standardized response mean (SRM) = - 1.25), DHI (ES = 0.64; SRM = 1.22), DASH (ES = 0.71; SRM = 1.01), and ABILHAND (ES = - 0.55; SRM = - 1.22). Our study revealed that MHQ, DHI, DASH and ABILHAND are responsive scales in detecting treatment-related changes in stroke patients. MHQ, DHI, DASH and ABILHAND can be used in the evaluation of treatment responses in stroke patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32671690What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.