ArticleNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2022
Construct Validity of the Upper-Limb Interlimb Coordination Test in Stroke.
Article in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contralesional Crossed Facilitation Impairs Bimanual Force Coordination in Chronic Stroke Survivors with Moderate-to-Mild Motor Impairment.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2026Article
- The Bimanual Observation of The Hands (BOTH): Development, reliability, and validity for stroke rehabilitation.PloS one · 2025Article
- A guide to inter-joint coordination characterization for discrete movements: a comparative study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoordination impairments are under-evaluated in patients with stroke due to the lack of validated assessments resulting in an unclear relationship between coordination deficits and functional limitations.
objectiveDetermine the construct validity of the new clinical upper-limb (UL) Interlimb Coordination test (ILC2) in individuals with chronic stroke.
methodsThirteen individuals with stroke, ≥40 years, with ≥30° isolated supination of the more-affected (MAff) arm, who could understand instructions and 13 healthy controls of similar age participated in a cross-sectional study. Participants performed synchronous bilateral anti-phase forearm rotations for 10 seconds in 4 conditions: self-paced internally-paced (IP1), fast internally-paced (IP2), slow externally-paced (EP1), and fast externally-paced (EP2). Primary (continuous relative phase-CRP, cross-correlation, lag) and secondary outcome measures (UL and trunk kinematics) were compared between groups.
resultsParticipants with stroke made slower UL movements than controls in all conditions, except EP1. Cross-correlation coefficients were lower (i.e., closer to 0) in stroke in IP1, but CRP and lag were similar between groups. In IP1 and matched-speed conditions (IP1 for healthy and IP2 for stroke), stroke participants used compensatory trunk and shoulder movements. The synchronicity sub-scale and total scores of ILC2 were related to temporal coordination in IP2. Interlimb Coordination test total score was related to greater shoulder rotation of the MAff arm. Interlimb Coordination test scores were not related to clinical scores.
conclusionInterlimb Coordination test is a valid clinical measure that may be used to objectively assess UL interlimb coordination in individuals with chronic stroke. Further reliability testing is needed to determine the clinical utility of the scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.