Purpose. This proof-of-concept study investigated whether feedback-mediated exercise (FME) of the affected arm of hemiplegic patients increases patient motivation and promotes greater improvement of motor function, compared to no-feedback exercise (NFE). Method. We developed a feedback-mediated treatment that uses gaming scenarios and allows online and offline monitoring of both temporal and spatial characteristics of planar movements. Twenty poststroke hemiplegic inpatients, randomly assigned to the FME and NFE group, received therapy five days a week for three weeks. The outcome measures were evaluated from the following: (1) the modified drawing test (mDT), (2) received therapy time—RTT, and (3) intrinsic motivation inventory—IMI. Results. The FME group patients showed significantly higher improvement in the speed metric (P < 0.01), and smoothness metric (P < 0.01), as well as higher RTT (P < 0.01). Significantly higher patient motivation is observed in the FME group (interest/enjoyment subscale (P < 0.01) and perceived competence subscale (P < 0.01)). Conclusion. Prolonged endurance in training and greater improvement in certain areas of motor function, as well as very high patient motivation and strong positive impressions about the treatment, suggest the positive effects of feedback-mediated treatment and its high level of acceptance by patients.
The ArmAssist is a simple low-cost robotic system for upper limb motor training that combines known benefits of repetitive task-oriented training, greater intensity of practice, and less dependence on therapist assistance. The aim of this preliminary study was to compare the efficacy of ArmAssist (AA) robotic training against matched conventional arm training in subacute stroke subjects with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. Twenty-six subjects were enrolled within 3 months of stroke and randomly assigned to the AA group or Control group (n = 13 each). Both groups were trained 5 days per week for 3 weeks. The primary outcome measure was Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) motor score, and the secondary outcomes were Wolf Motor Function Test-Functional Ability Scale (WMFT-FAS) and Barthel index (BI). The AA group, in comparison to the Control group, showed significantly greater increases in FMA-UE score (18.0 ± 9.4 versus 7.5 ± 5.5, p = 0.002) and WMFT-FAS score (14.1 ± 7.9 versus 6.7 ± 7.8, p = 0.025) after 3 weeks of treatment, whereas the increase in BI was not significant (21.2 ± 24.8 versus 13.1 ± 10.7, p = 0.292). There were no adverse events. We conclude that arm training using the AA robotic device is safe and able to reduce motor deficits more effectively than matched conventional arm training in subacute phase of stroke. The study has been registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02729649.
ObjectiveMultiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale (MSSS)-88 has been developed for self-assessment of spasticity symptoms in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The objective of this study was to validate MSSS-88 and evaluate the psychometric properties in patients with MS in Serbia.MethodsThe study comprised 65 MS patients with spasticity. MSSS-88 consists of 88 items grouped in eight sections. Internal consistency of the MSSS-88SR subscales was determined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Test/retest reliability with an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for each MSSS-88SR subscale was performed. Clinical validity of MSSS-88SR was determined by correlations with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS).ResultsThe range of Cronbach’s alpha for all scales and ICC was 0.91–0.96 and 0.84–0.91, respectively. All ICCs were statistically significant (p<0.05). All evaluated subscales of MSSS-88 were significantly correlated with the NRS scale. The highest correlation coefficients were registered between the WL subscale and the EDSS and MAS, while the strongest relationship was observed between the MSS subscale and the NRS.ConclusionThe Serbian translated version of this instrument may be useful as a clinical measure for spasticity and functionality in patients with MS.
The Patient-Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (PRISM) has been developed recently to assess the impact of spasticity on quality of life after spinal cord injury. Although PRISM may also be useful in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), its psychometric properties in MS have not been established and PRISM is currently available only in English. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to translate PRISM into the Serbian language (PRISMSR) and examine its validity (construct, convergent, divergent) and reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability) in 48 patients with spasticity because of MS diagnosed at least 1 year earlier and in remission at least 3 months. PRISMSR was administered twice 3 days apart. The validity of seven PRISMSR subscales was examined against the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for spasticity, sex, and education. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach α and test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement (ICC2,1). During the forward-backward translation, only one PRISM item required minor cultural adaption. Almost all PRISMSR scores correlated significantly with MAS and NRS scores (r=0.29-0.51, 0.001≤P≤0.043). They were all significantly higher for MAS≥2 group versus the MAS<2 group (0.003≤P≤0.035) and for the NRS≥7 group versus the NRS<7 group (0.001≤P≤0.042), except for the Social Embarrassment subscale (P=0.083). The PRISMSR scores were not significantly different between sexes (P≥0.104) or those with high school versus college degree (P≥0.139). Both Cronbach α (0.78-0.93) and test-retest ICC2,1 (0.82-0.90) were high. The original PRISM may be translated successfully into other languages. PRISMSR shows adequate validity and reliability for assessing the impact of spasticity on quality of life in patients with MS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.