ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2025
Development of the Italian version of the Motricity Index and evaluation of its reliability in adults with stroke.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07331714 (Comparative Effects of Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation and Modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy on Lower Limb Function in Patient With Stroke), which is not on this 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.
Comparative Effects of Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation and Modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy on Lower Limb Function in Patient With Stroke
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Retrospective Clinical Analysis of Pain and Spasticity Outcomes Following Gravity-Support Exoskeleton Therapy in Chronic Stroke.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Motricity Index (MI) is a commonly used method of measuring muscle strength in post-stroke hemiparesis. This study aimed to produce the MI Italian version (MI-IT) and assess its reliability in subjects with stroke.
methodsPhase-1: stepwise approach to MI-IT production and pilot-testing with 10 health professionals to ensure clarity of each item and instructions for administration and scoring. Phase-2: evaluation of MI-IT reliability on stroke subjects, each independently assessed by 2 raters randomly selected from a group of 10 physiotherapists; the first rater re-administered the MI-IT 1-3 days later. Intraclass correlation coefficients, Spearman's rho and, limited to the more affected side, non-parametric limits of agreement (LOA) were computed for total MI-IT scores, squared weighted kappa and percentage of observed agreement for individual item scores.
resultsThe back-translated versions showed no discrepancies with original MI, but 3 items were revised after pilot-testing. Complete data on 50 (test-retest) and 51 (inter-rater) participants demonstrated excellent reliability of all MI-IT total scores on the more affected side (Spearman's rho range: test-retest 0.953-0.975; inter-rater: 0.965-0.970), with LOA ranging from 9-25%), but poor inter-rater reliability for some scores on the less affected side (Spearman's rho range: test-retest, 0.816-0.976; inter-rater: 0.508-0.721). Moderate to almost perfect agreement was found for all individual item scores, except for 2 items on the less affected side.
conclusionsThe MI-IT is sufficiently reliable to evaluate motor impairment of the more affected side after stroke, with acceptable measurement error for all scores.
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.