4.5 Article

Arm Subscore of Motricity Index to Predict Recovery of Upper Limb Dexterity in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001326

Keywords

Rehabilitation; Stroke; Upper Limb; Cerebral Infarction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The aim of this study was to determine whether the arm subscore of the Motricity Index 1 wk after stroke can predict recovery of upper limb function according to the Action Research Arm Test before inpatient rehabilitation facility discharge and at 3-mo outpatient follow-up. Design This was a prospective cohort study of patients with acute ischemic stroke admitted to a single acute care hospital and affiliated inpatient rehabilitation facility between 2016 and 2018. Upper limb dexterity of the impaired limb was assessed using the arm subscore of the Motricity Index and Action Research Arm Test. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine optimal cutoffs of the initial arm subscore of the Motricity Index for a good functional outcome defined as Action Research Arm Test score of 45 or higher. Results Ninety-five patients were evaluated at median 6, 26, and 98.5 days after stroke. The median (interquartile range) arm subscore of the Motricity Index at 1 wk was 77 (20.3-93). The median (interquartile range) Action Research Arm Test scores before inpatient rehabilitation facility discharge and at 3-mo outpatient follow-up were 33 (3.5-52) and 52 (34-55.8), respectively. The optimal arm subscore of the Motricity Index to predict Action Research Arm Test score of 45 or higher before inpatient rehabilitation facility discharge and at 3-mo outpatient follow-up were 71 and 58, respectively. Conclusions Early arm subscore of the Motricity Index at 1 wk predicts upper limb functional capacity before inpatient rehabilitation facility discharge and at 3-mo outpatient follow-up.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available