ArticleEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2024
Validity and reliability of the chronic composite XA, an upper limb motor assessment using Active Range of Motion in patients with chronic stroke.
Article in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reliability of the Five Step Assessment and Its Coefficients of Impairment in Spastic Paresis.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpper limb (UL) spastic paresis has been classically evaluated with assessments of passive movements with limited functional validity. The aim of this study was to assess whether a composite measure of active range of motion (AROM, or X<inf>A</inf>) is valid and reliable in chronic post-stroke spastic paresis.
aimThe primary objective was to investigate the validity and reliability of a composite score, comprising multiple X<inf>A</inf> measurements, to assess UL spastic paresis in patients in chronic stages post-stroke. In addition to this, an exploratory analysis was conducted to identify which muscles should be optimally included in this composite score.
designA psychometric proprieties study.
settingPhysical and Rehabilitation Medicine Department. POPULATION: twenty-eight chronic post-stroke participants with spastic paresis.
methodsComposite UL X<inf>A</inf> measurement in twenty-eight chronic post-stroke participants (age=59±11 years; delay post-stroke=29±37 months) with spastic paresis was repeated twice about 40 days apart in a standardized body position. Concurrent and construct validity was evaluated exploring correlation with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), and grip strength (JAMAR™). Reliability was assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Regarding the exploratory analysis, a linear regression analysis was performed to examine the value of including various muscles.
resultsComposite X<inf>A</inf> against the resistance of elbow, wrist and finger flexors showed strong correlation with FMA-UE and ARAT (r=0.88; P<0.001 and r=0.82; P<0.001 respectively) and a weak association with grip strength (r=0.43; P=0.03). Test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC=0.92). However, the most effective regression model also included X<inf>A</inf> against the resistance of shoulder adductors as well as forearm pronator (adjusted R
conclusionsThe present study provided satisfactory psychometric data for the upper limb composite active movement (CX<inf>A</inf>), derived from the Five Step Assessment. For overall measurement of UL mobility after stroke, we strongly recommend including shoulder and forearm muscles to the score. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Composite X<inf>A</inf> is a valid and reliable measure of upper limb motor function in chronic post-stroke patients and could be used in clinical practice and research.
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.