Psychometric properties of light touch-pressure somatosensory measures in adults with neurological disorders: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To critically appraise the psychometric properties of light touch-pressure somatosensory assessments to provide guidance for tool selection for research or clinical purposes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched for research indexed from January 1990-November 2022. English language and human subject filters were applied. "Somatosensation", "psychometric property", and "nervous system-based health condition" search terms were combined. Grey literature and manual searches were conducted to ensure thoroughness. REVIEW METHODS: The reliability, construct validity, and/or measurement error of light touch-pressure assessments was reviewed in adult populations with neurological disorders. Reviewers individually extracted and managed data including patient demographics, assessment characteristics, statistical methods, and psychometric properties. Methodological quality of results was evaluated using an adapted version of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-three of 1938 articles were included for review. Fifteen light touch-pressure assessments demonstrated good or excellent reliability. Further, five of those 15 assessments achieved adequate validity and one of the 15 assessments achieved adequate measurement error. Over 80% of the summarized study ratings were determined to be of low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: We recommend using electrical perceptual tests, the Semmes-Weinstein Monofilaments, the Graded and Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility, and Prehension, and the Moving Touch Pressure Test given that they demonstrated good to excellent results in three psychometric properties. No other assessment achieved adequate ratings in more than two psychometric properties. This review highlights a fundamental need to develop sensory assessments that are reliable, valid, and sensitive to change.

Arm Motor Recovery After Ischemic Stroke: A Focus on Clinically Distinct Trajectory Groups.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recovery of arm function poststroke is highly variable with some people experiencing rapid recovery but many experiencing slower or limited functional improvement. Current stroke prediction models provide some guidance for clinicians regarding expected motor outcomes poststroke but do not address recovery rates, complicating discharge planning. This study developed a novel approach to defining recovery groups based on arm motor recovery trajectories poststroke. In addition, between-group differences in baseline characteristics and therapy hours were explored. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted where 40 participants with arm weakness were assessed 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after an ischemic stroke. Arm recovery trajectory groups were defined on the basis of timing of changes in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), at least the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), 1 week to 6 weeks or 6 weeks to 6 months. Three recovery trajectory groups were defined: Fast (n = 19), Extended (n = 12), and Limited (n = 9). Between-group differences in baseline characteristics and therapy hours were assessed. Associations between baseline characteristics and group membership were also determined. RESULTS: Three baseline characteristics were associated with trajectory group membership: FMA-UE, NIH Stroke Scale, and Barthel Index. The Fast Recovery group received the least therapy hours 6 weeks to 6 months. No differences in therapy hours were observed between Extended and Limited Recovery groups at any time points. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Three clinically relevant recovery trajectory groups were defined using the FMA-UE MCID. Baseline impairment, overall stroke severity, and dependence in activities of daily living were associated with group membership and therapy hours differed between groups. Stratifying individuals by recovery trajectory early poststroke could offer additional guidance to clinicians in discharge planning.(See Supplemental Digital Content 1 for Video Abstract, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A337.).

Vagus Nerve Stimulation Paired With Upper Limb Rehabilitation After Chronic Stroke.

Background and Purpose- We assessed safety, feasibility, and potential effects of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with rehabilitation for improving arm function after chronic stroke. Methods- We performed a randomized, multisite, double-blinded, sham-controlled pilot study. All participants were implanted with a VNS device and received 6-week in-clinic rehabilitation followed by a home exercise program. Randomization was to active VNS (n=8) or control VNS (n=9) paired with rehabilitation. Outcomes were assessed at days 1, 30, and 90 post-completion of in-clinic therapy. Results- All participants completed the course of therapy. There were 3 serious adverse events related to surgery. Average FMA-UE scores increased 7.6 with active VNS and 5.3 points with control at day 1 post-in-clinic therapy (difference, 2.3 points; CI, -1.8 to 6.4; P=0.20). At day 90, mean scores increased 9.5 points from baseline with active VNS, and the control scores improved by 3.8 (difference, 5.7 points; CI, -1.4 to 11.5; P=0.055). The clinically meaningful response rate of FMA-UE at day 90 was 88% with active VNS and 33% with control VNS ( P<0.05). Conclusions- VNS paired with rehabilitation was acceptably safe and feasible in participants with upper limb motor deficit after chronic ischemic stroke. A pivotal study of this therapy is justified. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02243020.

Vagus Nerve Stimulation Paired With Upper-Limb Rehabilitation After Stroke: One-Year Follow-up.

Background. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with rehabilitation may improve upper-limb impairment and function after ischemic stroke. Objective. To report 1-year safety, feasibility, adherence, and outcome data from a home exercise program paired with VNS using long-term follow-up data from a randomized double-blind study of rehabilitation therapy paired with Active VNS (n = 8) or Control VNS (n = 9). Methods. All people were implanted with a VNS device and underwent 6 weeks in clinic therapy with Control or Active VNS followed by home exercises through day 90. Thereafter, participants and investigators were unblinded. The Control VNS group then received 6 weeks in-clinic Active VNS (Cross-VNS group). All participants then performed an individualized home exercise program with self-administered Active VNS. Data from this phase are reported here. Outcome measures were Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), Wolf Motor Function Test (Functional and Time), Box and Block Test, Nine-Hole Peg Test, Stroke Impact Scale, and Motor Activity Log. Results. There were no VNS treatment-related serious adverse events during the long-term therapy. Two participants discontinued prior to receiving the full crossover VNS. On average, participants performed 200 ± 63 home therapy sessions, representing device use on 57.4% of home exercise days available for each participant. Pooled analysis revealed that 1 year after randomization, the FMA-UE score increased by 9.2 points (95% CI = 4.7 to 13.7; P = .001; n = 15). Other functional measures were also improved at 1 year. Conclusions. VNS combined with rehabilitation is feasible, with good long-term adherence, and may improve arm function after ischemic stroke.