4.5 Article

The influence of contractures and variation in measurement stretching velocity on the reliability of the Modified Ashworth Scale in patients with severe brain injury

期刊

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 63-72

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr824oa

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the influence of contractures and different stretching velocities on the reliability of the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) in patients with severe brain injury and impaired consciousness. Design: Cross-section observational study. Setting: A rehabilitation centre for adult persons with neurological disorders. Subjects: Fifty patients with impaired consciousness due to severe cerebral damage of various aetiologies. Measurement protocol: Three experienced and trained medical professionals rated each patient in a randomized order once daily for two consecutive days. Shoulder, elbow, wrist, knee and ankle spasticity were assessed by the use of the MAS with different stretching velocities. The presence of contractures was assessed by a goniometer. Main outcome measures: Retest and inter-rater reliability (k(w) = weighted kappa) of the MAS. Results: The retest reliability of the MAS was good (shoulder joints (k(w) 0.74), elbow joints (k(w) 0.74), wrist joints (k(w) 0.72), knee joints (k(w) 0.72), ankle joints (k(w) 0.77)) and the inter-rater reliability was moderate (shoulder joints (k(w) 0.49), elbow joints (k(w) 0.52), wrist joints (k(w) 0.51), knee joints (k(w) 0.54) ankle joints (k(w) 0.49)). The presence of contractures significantly influenced the reliability of MAS in shoulder and wrist joints. No influence of stretching velocity on the reliability of the MAS was found. Conclusion: In patients with impaired consciousness due to severe brain injury the MAS has good retest, but only limited inter-rater, reliability. The presence of contractures may influence reliability of the MAS, but stretching velocity does not.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据