Responsiveness of kinematic and clinical measures of upper-limb motor function after stroke: A systematic review and...

Kinematic analysis and clinical outcome measures with established responsiveness contribute to the quantified assessment of upper-limb function post-stroke, the selection of interventions and the differentiation of motor recovery patterns.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to report trends in use and compare the responsiveness of kinematic and clinical measures in studies measuring the effectiveness of constraint-induced movement, trunk restraint and bilateral arm therapies for upper-limb function after stroke.

In this systematic review, randomised controlled trials implementing kinematic analysis and clinical outcome measures to evaluate the effects of therapies in post-stroke adults were eligible. We searched 8 electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL, OTseeker and Pedro). Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias domains. A meta-analysis was conducted for repeated design measures of pre- and post-test data providing estimated standardised mean differences (SMDs).

We included reports of 12 studies (191 participants) reporting kinematic smoothness, movement duration and efficiency, trunk and shoulder range of motion, control strategy and velocity variables in conjunction with assessment by Motor Activity Log, Fugl-Meyer Assessment and Wolf Motor Function Test. Responsiveness was higher (i.e., non-overlap of 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for Motor Activity Log score (SMD for amount of use 1.0, 95% CI 0.75-1.25, P<0.001; SMD for quality of movement 0.96, 95% CI 0.72-1.20, P<0.001) than movement efficiency, trunk and shoulder range of motion, control strategy and peak velocity.

These results are consistent with current literature supporting the use of combined kinematic and clinical measures for comprehensive and accurate evaluation of upper-limb function post-stroke. Future research should include other design trials and rehabilitation types to confirm these findings, focusing on subgroup analysis of type of rehabilitation intervention and functional levels.