Abstract
Objective
To investigate the predictors of minimal clinically important changes on outcome measures
after robot-assisted therapy (RT).
Design
Observational cohort study.
Setting
Outpatient rehabilitation clinics.
Participants
A cohort of outpatients with stroke (N=55).
Interventions
Patients with stroke received RT for 90 to 105min/d, 5d/wk, for 4 weeks.
Main Outcome Measures
Outcome measures, including the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Motor Activity Log
(MAL), were measured before and after the intervention. Potential predictors include
age, sex, side of lesion, time since stroke onset, finger extension, Box and Block
Test (BBT) score, and FMA distal score.
Results
Statistical analysis showed that the BBT score (odds ratio[OR]=1.06; P=.04) was a significant predictor of clinically important changes in the FMA. Being
a woman (OR=3.9; P=.05) and BBT score (OR=1.07; P=.02) were the 2 significant predictors of clinically significant changes in the MAL
amount of use subscale. The BBT score was the significant predictor of an increased
probability of achieving clinically important changes in the MAL quality of movement
subscale (OR=1.07; P=.02). The R2 values for the 3 logistic regression models were low (.114−.272).
Conclusions
The results revealed that patients with stroke who had greater manual dexterity measured
by the BBT appear to have a higher probability of achieving clinically significant
motor and functional outcomes after RT. Further studies are needed to evaluate other
potential predictors to improve the models and validate the findings.
Keywords
List of abbreviations:
AOU (amount of use), BBT (Box and Block Test), FMA (Fugl-Meyer Assessment), MAL (Motor Activity Log), QOM (quality of movement), RT (robot-assisted therapy), VIF (variance inflation factor)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Computerized arm training improves the motor control of the severely affected arm after stroke: a single-blinded randomized trial in two centers.Stroke. 2005; 36: 1960-1966
- Dose-response relationship of robot-assisted stroke motor rehabilitation: the impact of initial motor status.Stroke. 2012; 43: 2729-2734
- Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke.N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 1772-1783
- Robot-assisted movement training compared with conventional therapy techniques for the rehabilitation of upper-limb motor function after stroke.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83: 952-959
- Robot training enhanced motor outcome in patients with stroke maintained over 3 years.Neurology. 1999; 53: 1874-1876
- Challenges and opportunities for robot-mediated neurorehabilitation.Proc IEEE. 2006; 94: 1717-1726
- Transfer of scientific concepts to clinical practice: recent robot-assisted training studies.Funct Neurol. 2009; 24: 173-177
- Effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review.Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008; 22: 111-121
- Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving generic activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 6: CD006876
- Progressive staging of pilot studies to improve phase III trials for motor interventions.Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009; 23: 197-206
- Clinical relevance of action observation in upper-limb stroke rehabilitation: a possible role in recovery of functional dexterity. A randomized clinical trial.Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012; 26: 456-462
- Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Rehabil. 2012; 26: 291-313
- Active finger extension predicts outcomes after constraint-induced movement therapy for individuals with hemiparesis after stroke.Stroke. 2005; 36: 1172-1177
- Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke.Stroke. 2003; 34: 2181-2186
- Potential predictors of motor and functional outcomes after distributed constraint-induced therapy for patients with stroke.Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009; 23: 336-342
- The EXCITE trial: predicting a clinically meaningful Motor Activity Log outcome.Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008; 22: 486-493
- Robot-aided neurorehabilitation: a robot for wrist rehabilitation.IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007; 15: 327-335
- Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke.Brain. 2008; 131: 425-437
- Pilot comparative study of unilateral and bilateral robot-assisted training on upper-extremity performance in patients with stroke.Am J Occup Ther. 2012; 66: 198-206
- Mini-Mental State Examination.in: Copeland J.R.M. Abou-Saleh M.T. Blazer D.G. Principles and practice of geriatric psychiatry. 2nd ed. Wiley & Sons, West Sussex2002: 140-141
- Lower-extremity strength differences predict activity limitations in people with chronic stroke.Phys Ther. 2009; 89: 73-81
- The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance.Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975; 7: 13-31
- Responsiveness and validity of three outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation.Stroke. 2009; 40: 1386-1391
- Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study.Clin Rehabil. 2005; 19: 404-411
- Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer Scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke.Phys Ther. 2012; 92: 791-798
- Clinimetric properties of the Motor Activity Log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients.Stroke. 2004; 35: 1410-1414
- Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 89: 1693-1700
- Forced use of the upper extremity in chronic stroke patients: results from a single-blind randomized clinical trial.Stroke. 1999; 30: 2369-2375
- Test-retest reproducibility and smallest real difference of 5 hand function tests in patients with stroke.Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009; 23: 435-440
- Responsiveness and validity of three dexterous function measures in stroke rehabilitation.J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010; 47: 563-571
- Poststroke fatigue: who is at risk for an increase in fatigue?.Stroke Res Treat. 2012; 2012: 863978
- What determines good recovery in patients with the most severe strokes? The Copenhagen Stroke Study.Stroke. 1999; 30: 2008-2012
- A narrative review of dexterity assessments.J Hand Ther. 2009; 22 (quiz 270): 258-269
- Arm-hand use in healthy older adults.Am J Occup Ther. 2010; 64: 877-885
- Manual ability as a marker of dependency in geriatric women.J Chronic Dis. 1982; 35: 115-122
- Gender differences in the functional recovery after acute stroke.J Clin Neurol. 2010; 6: 183-188
- Gender differences in stroke incidence and poststroke disability in the Framingham heart study.Stroke. 2009; 40: 1032-1037
- Sex differences in stroke recovery.Prev Chronic Dis. 2005; 2: A13
- Gender differences in the performance of activities of daily living.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84: 1872-1877
- Gender-related differences in scores of the Barthel Index and Frenchay Activities Index in randomly sampled elderly persons living at home in Japan.J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52: 1089-1094
- Disability among the elderly of Taiwan.Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995; 74: 370-374
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 09, 2013
Footnotes
Supported in part by the National Health Research Institutes (grant nos. NHRI-EX101-9920PI and NHRI-EX101-10010PI), National Science Council (grant nos. NSC-100-2314-B-002-008-MY3, NSC-99-2314-B-182-014-MY3, and NSC-102-2314-B-182-001), and the Healthy Aging Research Center at Chang Gung University (grant no. EMRPD1B0371) in Taiwan.
No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the authors or on any organization with which the authors are associated.
Identification
Copyright
© 2014 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
