Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33081783›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2020

Relationships between accelerometry and general compensatory movements of the upper limb after stroke.

Jessica Barth, Joeseph W Klaesner, Catherine E Lang

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessica BarthWashington University School of Medicine, Program in Physical Therapy, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Joeseph W KlaesnerWashington University School of Medicine, Program in Physical Therapy, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Catherine E LangWashington University School of Medicine, Program in Physical Therapy, St. Louis, MO, USA. langc@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7120-0136
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (TL1)TL1TR002344 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Jay F. Piccirillo · 2017 to 2026
$8.5M
DOCTORAL TRAINING PROGRAM IN MOVEMENT SCIENCET32HD007434 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Michael D Harris, Catherine Lang · 1993 to 2026
$4.2M
Translation of in-clinic Gains to Gains in Daily Life After StrokeR01HD068290 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI LANG, CATHERINE · 2012 to 2021
$4.0M
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development R01HD068290Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development T32HD007434NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002344NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD068290NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007434NIH HHS TL1TR002344
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandardized assessments are used in rehabilitation clinics after stroke to measure restoration versus compensatory movements of the upper limb. Accelerometry is an emerging tool that can bridge the gap between in- and out-of-clinic assessments of the upper limb, but is limited in that it currently does not capture the quality of a person's movement, an important concept to assess compensation versus restoration. The purpose of this analysis was to characterize how accelerometer variables may reflect upper limb compensatory movement patterns after stroke.

methodsThis study was a secondary analysis of an existing data set from a Phase II, single-blind, randomized, parallel dose-response trial (NCT0114369). Sources of data utilized were: (1) a compensatory movement score derived from video analysis of the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and (2) calculated accelerometer variables quantifying time, magnitude and variability of upper limb movement from the same time point during study participation for both in-clinic and out-of-clinic recording periods.

resultsParticipants had chronic upper limb paresis of mild to moderate severity. Compensatory movement scores varied across the sample, with a mean of 73.7 ± 33.6 and range from 11.5 to 188. Moderate correlations were observed between the compensatory movement score and each accelerometer variable. Accelerometer variables measured out-of-clinic had stronger relationships with compensatory movements, compared with accelerometer variables in-clinic. Variables quantifying time, magnitude, and variability of upper limb movement out-of-clinic had relationships to the compensatory movement score.

conclusionsAccelerometry is a tool that, while measuring movement quantity, can also reflect the use of general compensatory movement patterns of the upper limb in persons with chronic stroke. Individuals who move their limbs more in daily life with respect to time and variability tend to move with less movement compensations and more typical movement patterns. Likewise, individuals who move their paretic limbs less and their non-paretic limb more in daily life tend to move with more movement compensations at all joints in the paretic limb and less typical movement patterns.

Indexed as

AccelerometryAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMovementSingle-Blind MethodStrokeStroke RehabilitationUpper ExtremityAccelerometryCerebrovascular diseaseStroke rehabilitationUpper extremity

Identifiers

PMID33081783
PMCPMC7576735
OpenAlexW3094049186

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.