Systematic Review on Kinematic Assessments of Upper Limb Movements After Stroke

Background and Purpose— Assessing upper limb movements poststroke is crucial to monitor and understand sensorimotor recovery. Kinematic assessments are expected to enable a sensitive quantification of movement quality and distinguish between restitution and compensation. The nature and practice of these assessments are highly variable and used without knowledge of their clinimetric properties. This presents a challenge when interpreting and comparing results. The purpose of this review was to summarize the state of the art regarding kinematic upper limb assessments poststroke with respect to the assessment task, measurement system, and performance metrics with their clinimetric properties. Subsequently, we aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for future applications of upper limb kinematics in stroke recovery research. Methods— A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and IEEE Xplore. Studies investigating clinimetric properties of applied metrics were assessed for risk of bias using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist. The quality of evidence for metrics was determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results— A total of 225 studies (N=6197) using 151 different kinematic metrics were identified and allocated to 5 task and 3 measurement system groups. Thirty studies investigated clinimetrics of 62 metrics: reliability (n=8), measurement error (n=5), convergent validity (n=22), and responsiveness (n=2). The metrics task/movement time, number of movement onsets, number of movement ends, path length ratio, peak velocity, number of velocity peaks, trunk displacement, and shoulder flexion/extension received a sufficient evaluation for one clinimetric property. Conclusions— Studies on kinematic assessments of upper limb sensorimotor function are poorly standardized and rarely investigate clinimetrics in an unbiased manner. Based on the available evidence, recommendations on the assessment task, measurement system, and performance metrics were made with the goal to increase standardization. Further high-quality studies evaluating clinimetric properties are needed to validate kinematic assessments, with the long-term goal to elucidate upper limb sensorimotor recovery poststroke. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42017064279.

[1]  P. Langhorne,et al.  Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review , 2009, The Lancet Neurology.

[2]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  P. Celnik,et al.  Stroke Rehabilitation. , 2015, Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America.

[4]  Julius P A Dewald,et al.  The Impact of Shoulder Abduction Loading on Volitional Hand Opening and Grasping in Chronic Hemiparetic Stroke , 2017, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[5]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[6]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  Influence of Arm Weight Support on a Robotic Assessment of Upper Limb Function , 2018, 2018 7th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (Biorob).

[7]  P. Langhorne,et al.  Stroke rehabilitation , 2011, The Lancet.

[8]  H. Vet,et al.  COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures , 2017, Quality of Life Research.

[9]  C. Häger,et al.  Kinematic analysis of the upper extremity after stroke – how far have we reached and what have we grasped? , 2015 .

[10]  Gert Kwakkel,et al.  Early Prediction of Outcome of Activities of Daily Living After Stroke: A Systematic Review , 2011, Stroke.

[11]  Joanne M Wagner,et al.  Measurement of upper-extremity function early after stroke: properties of the action research arm test. , 2006, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[12]  A. Timmermans,et al.  Interactive wearable systems for upper body rehabilitation: a systematic review , 2017, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[13]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  Performance comparison of interaction control strategies on a hand rehabilitation robot , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR).

[14]  Hui Chen,et al.  Test-Retest Reproducibility and Smallest Real Difference of 5 Hand Function Tests in Patients With Stroke , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[15]  Diego Torricelli,et al.  Quantitative assessment based on kinematic measures of functional impairments during upper extremity movements: A review. , 2014, Clinical biomechanics.

[16]  Leonid Churilov,et al.  Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable , 2017, International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society.

[17]  Leonid Churilov,et al.  Consensus Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials : Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable , 2017 .

[18]  Marc Bolliger,et al.  Robotic and Wearable Sensor Technologies for Measurements/Clinical Assessments , 2016 .

[19]  Itshak Melzer,et al.  Parameters and Measures in Assessment of Motor Learning in Neurorehabilitation; A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2017, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[20]  S. Black,et al.  The Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Motor Recovery after Stroke: A Critical Review of Its Measurement Properties , 2002, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[21]  Robert Riener,et al.  Exoskeleton transparency: feed-forward compensation vs. disturbance observer , 2018, Autom..

[22]  John W Krakauer,et al.  Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: The Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable taskforce , 2017, International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society.

[23]  Julius P. A. Dewald,et al.  Robotic quantification of upper extremity loss of independent joint control or flexion synergy in individuals with hemiparetic stroke: a review of paradigms addressing the effects of shoulder abduction loading , 2016, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[24]  Hermano I Krebs,et al.  Robotic Measurement of Arm Movements After Stroke Establishes Biomarkers of Motor Recovery , 2014, Stroke.

[25]  S. Cramer,et al.  Validity of Robot-Based Assessments of Upper Extremity Function. , 2017, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[26]  A. Fugl-Meyer,et al.  The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. II. Incidence, mortality, and vocational return in Göteborg, Sweden with a review of the literature. , 1975, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[27]  Sandeep K Subramanian,et al.  Validity of Movement Pattern Kinematics as Measures of Arm Motor Impairment Poststroke , 2010, Stroke.

[28]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[29]  Stephen H. Scott,et al.  Statistical measures of motor, sensory and cognitive performance across repeated robot-based testing , 2020, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[30]  D. Carroll,et al.  A QUANTITATIVE TEST OF UPPER EXTREMITY FUNCTION. , 1965, Journal of chronic diseases.

[31]  Mike D. Rinderknecht,et al.  A data-driven framework for selecting and validating digital health metrics: use-case in neurological sensorimotor impairments , 2020, npj Digital Medicine.

[32]  Li-ling Chuang,et al.  Responsiveness and validity of three dexterous function measures in stroke rehabilitation. , 2010, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[33]  Nicolas Schweighofer,et al.  Dissociating motor learning from recovery in exoskeleton training post-stroke , 2018, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[34]  Russell Baker,et al.  A Review of Computational Approaches for Evaluation of Rehabilitation Exercises , 2020, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[35]  Paolo Dario,et al.  Kinematic measures for upper limb robot-assisted therapy following stroke and correlations with clinical outcome measures: A review. , 2018, Medical engineering & physics.

[36]  G. Kwakkel,et al.  Presence of Finger Extension and Shoulder Abduction Within 72 Hours After Stroke Predicts Functional Recovery: Early Prediction of Functional Outcome After Stroke: The EPOS Cohort Study , 2010, Stroke.

[37]  Seng Kwee Wee,et al.  Concurrent Validity of a Novel Wireless Inertial Measurement System for Assessing Trunk Impairment in People with Stroke , 2020, Sensors.

[38]  A. Turolla,et al.  Effects of robot therapy on upper body kinematics and arm function in persons post stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial , 2020, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[39]  B. Wünsche,et al.  Assessment of movement quality in robot- assisted upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: a review , 2014, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[40]  K. Sunnerhagen,et al.  Recovery of kinematic arm function in well-performing people with subacute stroke: a longitudinal cohort study , 2018, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.