Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34952873›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Validity and reliability of the Modified Tardieu Scale as a spasticity outcome measure of the upper limbs in adults with neurological conditions: a systematic review and narrative analysis.

Xiaoyi Shu, Ciara McConaghy, Alec Knight

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Xiaoyi ShuSchool of Kinesiology, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China shuxiaoyi@sus.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-7141-1382
Ciara McConaghyDepartment of Physiotherapy, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alec KnightDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2937-436X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate published evidence on the Modified Tardieu Scale (MTS) as a tool to assess spasticity in the upper limbs of adults with neurological conditions. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of six electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Physiotherapy Evidence Database) from inception to 31 December 2020. A search strategy was developed using key elements of the research question: population, intervention (action), outcome. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria: (1) adult participants with neurological conditions; (2) upper limb muscles/joints as tested elements; (3) studies testing the MTS and (4) reliability or validity reported. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) non-English articles; (2) non-empirical articles and (3) studies testing the Tardieu Scale. STUDY APPRAISAL: Evidence quality was evaluated using the US National Heart, Lung, Blood Institute quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.

resultsSix reliability studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, most articles reported good-to-excellent levels of inter-rater, intrarater and test-retest reliability. However, limitations, such as study design weaknesses, statistical misuses and reporting biases, undermine confidence in reported conclusions. The validity of the MTS also remained questionable based on the results of one study. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This review did not find sufficient evidence to either support or reject the use of the MTS in assessing spasticity in the upper limbs of adults with neurological conditions. Despite the paucity of research evidence, the MTS may still remain a clinically useful tool to measure the motor aspect of spasticity. Future research would benefit from a focus on test standardisation, while the wider field would require the development of a consensual definition of spasticity.

Indexed as

Muscle SpasticityNervous System DiseasesUpper ExtremityAdultHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness Indexmultiple sclerosisrehabilitation medicinestroke

Identifiers

PMID34952873
PMCPMC8712979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.