Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38851741›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024

A scoping review on examination approaches for identifying tactile deficits at the upper extremity in individuals with stroke.

Arco P Paul, Karan Nayak, Lindsey C Sydnor, Nahid Kalantaryardebily, Kevin M Parcetich, Daniel G Miner, Q Eileen Wafford, Jane E Sullivan, Netta Gurari

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

9 authors.

Arco P PaulPhysical Therapy, Radford University, Radford, Virginia, USA.
Karan NayakNeuroscience, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Lindsey C SydnorNeuroscience, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
Nahid KalantaryardebilyEngineering Mechanics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
Kevin M ParcetichPhysical Therapy, Radford University, Radford, Virginia, USA.
Daniel G MinerPhysical Therapy, Radford University, Radford, Virginia, USA.
Q Eileen WaffordGalter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Jane E SullivanPhysical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Netta GurariBiomedical Engineering and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. gurari@vt.edu.

Funding

Upper-Extremity Torque Perceptual Impairments in Chronic Hemiparetic StrokeK25HD096116 · NICHD · VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST AND ST UNIV · PI GURARI, NETTA · 2018 to 2022
$696k
Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science Junior Faculty ProgramNIH HHS K25HD096116
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAccurate perception of tactile stimuli is essential for performing and learning activities of daily living. Through this scoping review, we sought to summarize existing examination approaches for identifying tactile deficits at the upper extremity in individuals with stroke. The goal was to identify current limitations and future research needs for designing more comprehensive examination tools.

methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework and the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A database search for tactile examination approaches at the upper extremity of individuals with stroke was conducted using Medline (Ovid), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (Ebsco), Scopus (Elsevier), PsycInfo (Ebsco), and Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global. Original research and review articles that involved adults (18 years or older) with stroke, and performed tactile examinations at the upper extremity were eligible for inclusion. Data items extracted from the selected articles included: if the examination was behavioral in nature and involved neuroimaging, the extent to which the arm participated during the examination, the number of possible outcomes of the examination, the type(s) of tactile stimulation equipment used, the location(s) along the arm examined, the peripheral nerves targeted for examination, and if any comparison was made with the non-paretic arm or with the arms of individuals who are neurotypical.

resultsTwenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria and were accepted in this review. Most examination approaches were behavioral in nature and involved self-reporting of whether a tactile stimulus was felt while the arm remained passive (i.e., no volitional muscle activity). Typically, the number of possible outcomes with these behavioral approaches were limited (2-3), whereas the neuroimaging approaches had many more possible outcomes ( DISCUSSION: Our findings noted that most upper extremity tactile examinations are behavioral approaches, which are subjective in nature, lack adequate resolution, and are insufficient to identify the underlying neural mechanisms of tactile deficits. Also, most examinations are administered at distal locations of the upper extremity when the examinee's arm is relaxed (passive). Further research is needed to develop better tactile examination tools that combine behavioral responses and neurophysiological outcomes, and allow volitional tactile exploration. Approaches that include testing of multiple body locations/nerves along the upper extremity, provide higher resolution of outcomes, and consider normative comparisons with individuals who are neurotypical may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the tactile deficits occurring following a stroke.

Indexed as

StrokeUpper ExtremityHumansTouchTouch Perception

Identifiers

PMID38851741
PMCPMC11162071

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.