4.4 Article

Biomechanical approaches applied to the lower and upper limb for the measurement of spasticity: A systematic review of the literature

期刊

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
卷 27, 期 1-2, 页码 19-32

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09638280400014683

关键词

biomechanical; spasticity; assessment; measurement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To review and characterise biomechanical approaches for the measurement of spasticity as one component of the upper motor neurone syndrome. Method: Systematic literature searches based on defined constructs and a four-step review process of approaches used or described to measure spasticity, its association with function or associated phenomena. Most approaches were limited to individual joints and therefore, to reflect this trend, references were grouped according to which body joint( s) were investigated or whether it addressed a functional activity. For each joint, references were further sub-divided into the types of measurement method described. Results: A database of 335 references was established for the review process. The knee, ankle and elbow joints were the most popular, perhaps reflecting the assumption that they are mono-planar in movement and therefore simpler to assess. Seven measurement methods were identified: five involving passive movement ( manual, controlled displacement, controlled torque, gravitational and tendon tap) and two involving active movement ( voluntary and functional). Generally, the equipment described was in an experimental stage and there was a lack of information on system properties, such as accuracy or reliability. Patient testing was either by cohort or case studies. The review also conveyed the myriad of interpretations of the concept of spasticity. Conclusions: Though biomechanical approaches provide quantitative data, the review highlighted several limitations that have prevented them being established as an appropriate method for clinical application to measure spasticity.

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

4.4
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