ArticleScientific reports2026
Validity of spasticity related parameters obtained from manual clinical instrumented assessment in stroke patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spasticity is a common post-stroke impairment, yet current clinical scales fail to distinguish between neural and non-neural components. This study aims to evaluate the discriminative validity of the Instrumented Spasticity Assessment (ISA) tool in chronic stroke patients by comparing ISA-derived parameters between affected, nonaffected, and healthy control legs. This cross-sectional study included 18 chronic first-ever stroke patients and 28 age-matched controls. ISA measurements (EMG and torque) were collected during passive stretches at low (5s) and high (fast as possible) velocities. Changes in EMG and torque between velocities were analyzed to distinguish neural and non-neural spasticity components. The affected leg showed significantly higher rms-EMG HV-LV than healthy controls (p = 0.002, small effect), and higher rms-EMG HV-LV (%) than both the non-affected leg (p = 0.004, large effect) and healthy controls (p < 0.001, small effect). Torque HV-LV was significantly lower in the affected leg compared to the non-affected leg (p < 0.001, large effect) and healthy controls (p < 0.001, small effect). ISA-derived spasticity parameters showed discriminative validity between affected and non-affected legs in stroke patients and versus healthy controls. Significant differences highlight ISA’s potential to improve spasticity assessment and guide treatment in clinical practice.
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.