Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Comparisons of accelerometer data and clinical scales

From: Accelerometer measurement of upper extremity movement after stroke: a systematic review of clinical studies

  Uswatte et al. (2006)[16] Lang et al. (2007)[10] Thrane et al. (2011)[12] Van der Pas et al. (2011)[8] Wang et al. (2011)[13] Rand et al. (2012)[16] Liao et al. (2012)[17] Taub et al. (2013)[15]
Statistical approach Type 3,1 intraclass correlations. Spearman correlation Spearman correlation Spearman correlation Pearson correlations Paired t-test ANCOVA Paired t-test
Accelerometer data comparison AMR Duration of use Duration of use Calculated AMR Activity counts Calculated AMR Calculated AMR Activity counts, the upper extremity activity did not change. Calculated AMR. The robot-assisted therapy group improved compared with the active control group: accelerometer F1,16=5.91, p=0.026, effect size r=0.26. Calculated AMR. Improved from baseline to post-intervention: t=2.9, p=0.016, d’=1.2
Clinical Measures of Impairment
AROM   Shoulder flex r=0.30, p<0.05, elbow flex r=0.50, p=0.01, wrist ext r=0.63, p<0.01       Changed from baseline to post-intervention: t=6.1, p=0.001, d’=2.6.
FMS    The duration of use of the affected arm: r=0.60, p<0.001. AMR: r=-0.85, p<0.001    FMA improved: t=-2.9, p=0.005 The robot-assisted therapy group improved compared with the active control group: FMA F1,16=14.32, p=0.002, effect size r=0.46 Change in FMA from baseline to post-intervention t=4.0, p=0.005, d’=1.6
Modified Ashworth Scale r=-0.31, n.s       
Pain   Shoulder pain r=0.41, p<0.01       
Sensation   Composite light touch r=-0.15, n.s., joint position sense r=-0.03, n.s       
Strength using a hand-held dynamometer   Shoulder flex r=0.34, p<0.01, elbow flex r=0.52, p<0.01, wrist ext r=0.37, p<0.01, grip r=0.42, p<0.01       
Gait speed       Improved: t=-4.8, p<0.001   
Clinical Measures of Function
ARAT   r=0.40, p<0.01     Improved: t=-4.7, p<0.001   
FIM   Motor r=0.67, p<0.01, UE r=0.58. p<0.01.     Improved: t=-7.6, p<0.001 The robot-assisted therapy group improved compared with the control group: FIM F1,16=0.03, p=0.88, effect size r=0.002  
WMFT   Function r=0.62, p<0.01; time r=-0.65, p<0.01       
BBS       BBS improved: t=-6.4, p<0.001   
6MWT       6MWT improved: t=-4.8, p<0.001   
Clinical Questionnaires
ABILHAND      At baseline and post treatment: r=0.45–0.54, p<0.01.   The robot-assisted therapy group improved compared with the control group: F1,16=4.76, p=0.043, effect size r=0.22  
MAL AMR was correlated with QOM r=0.52, p<0.01 and AOU r=0.47, p<0.01. Less-impaired arm accelerometry was not correlated with QOM r=0.14, n.s. and AOU r=0.14, n.s.    Bilateral arm activity (mean of 2 arms): MAL-26AOU Scale r=0.37, p<0.01. MAL-26AOU Scale r=0.37, p<0.01.    The robot-assisted therapy group improved compared with the control group: MAL AOU F1,16=9.39, p=0.007, effect size r=0.36, MAL QOM F1,16=13.48, p=0.002, effect size r=0.44 Change in FL-MAL Arm Use scale from baseline to post-intervention: t=7.4, p=0.001, effect size(d’)=3.0
AMR: MAL-26AOU Scale r=0.60, p<0.001, MAL-26QOM Scale r=0.66, p<0.001.
Affected arm activity: MAL-26AOU Scale r=0.58, p<0.001, MAL-26QOM Scale r=0.65, p<0.001.
  1. Note: AMR – arm movement ratio, AROM - Active Range of Motion, ARAT – Action Research Arm Test, WMFT – Wolf Motor Function Test, FIM – Functional Independence Measure, FIM UE – FIM Upper Extremity, FMS – Fugl-Meyer Scale, MAL – Motor Activity Log, LF-MAL – lower functioning MAL, MAL-26 QOM – MAL-26 Quality of Movement, MAL-26 AOU – MAL-26 Amount of Use, CIMT – Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy, SIS – Stroke Impact Scale, NEADL – Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living, BBS – Berg Balance Scale, 6MWT – 6 Minute Walking Test.