Richard Curless

A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth Scales as measures of spasticity

Background: The Ashworth Scale and the modified Ashworth Scale are the primary clinical measures of spasticity. A prerequisite for using any scale is a knowledge of its characteristics and limitations, as these will play a part in analysing and interpreting the data. Despite the current emphasis on treating spasticity, clinicians rarely measure it. Objectives: To determine the validity and the reliability of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth Scales. Study design: A theoretical analysis following a structured literature review (key words: Ashworth; Spasticity; Measurement) of 40 papers selected from the BIDS-EMBASE, First Search and Medline databases. Conclusions: The application of both scales would suggest that confusion exists on their characteristics and limitations as measures of spasticity. Resistance to passive movement is a complex measure that will be influenced by many factors, only one of which could be spasticity. The Ashworth Scale (AS) can be used as an ordinal level measure of resistance to passive movement, but not spasticity. The modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) will need to be treated as a nominal level measure of resistance to passive movement until the ambiguity between the ‘1’ and ‘1+’ grades is resolved. The reliability of the scales is better in the upper limb. The AS may be more reliable than the MAS. There is a need to standardize methods to apply these scales in clinical practice and research.

Randomized Controlled Trial of a Comprehensive Stroke Education Program for Patients and Caregivers

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE We report the findings of a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary Stroke Education Program (SEP) for patients and their informal carers. METHODS Two hundred four patients admitted with acute stroke and their 176 informal carers were randomized to receive an invitation to the SEP or to receive conventional stroke unit care. The SEP consisted of one 1-hour small group educational session for inpatients followed by six 1-hour sessions after discharge. The primary outcome measure was patient- and carer-perceived health status (SF-36) at 6 months after stroke. Knowledge of stroke, satisfaction with services, emotional outcome, disability, and handicap and were secondary outcome measures. RESULTS Only 51 of 108 (47%) surviving patients randomized to the SEP completed the program, as did 20 of 93 (22%) informal carers of surviving patients. Perceived health status (Short Form 36 [SF-36] health survey) scores were similar for SEP patients and controls. Informal carers in the control group scored better on the social functioning component of the SF-36 than the SEP group (P=0.04). Patients and informal carers in the SEP group scored higher on the stroke knowledge scale than controls (patients, P=0.02; carers, P=0. 01). Patients in the SEP group were more satisfied with the information that they had received about stroke (P=0.004). There were no differences in emotional or functional outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS Although the SEP improved patient and informal carer knowledge about stroke and patient satisfaction with some components of stroke services, this was not associated with an improvement in their perceived health status. Indeed, the social functioning of informal carers randomized to the SEP was less than in the control group.

Can Stroke Patients Use Visual Analogue Scales

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Visual analogue scales (VAS) have been used for the subjective measurement of mood, pain, and health status after stroke. In this study we investigated how stroke-related impairments could alter the ability of subjects to answer accurately. METHODS Consent was obtained from 96 subjects with a clinical stroke (mean age, 72.5 years; 50 men) and 48 control subjects without cerebrovascular disease (mean age, 71.5 years; 29 men). Patients with reduced conscious level or severe dysphasia were excluded. Subjects were asked to rate the tightness that they could feel on the (unaffected) upper arm after 3 low-pressure inflations with a standard sphygmomanometer cuff, which followed a predetermined sequence (20 mm Hg, 40 mm Hg, 0 mm Hg). Immediately after each change, they rated the perceived tightness on 5 scales presented in a random order: 4-point rating scale (none, mild, moderate, severe), 0 to 10 numerical rating scale, mechanical VAS, horizontal VAS, and vertical VAS. Standard tests recorded deficits in language, cognition, and visuospatial awareness. RESULTS Inability to complete scales with the correct pattern was associated with any stroke (P<0.001). There was a significant association between success using scales and milder clinical stroke subtype (P<0.01). Within the stroke group, logistic regression analysis identified significant associations (P<0.05) between impairments (cognitive and visuospatial) and inability to complete individual scales correctly. CONCLUSIONS Many patients after a stroke are unable to successfully complete self-report measurement scales, including VAS.

Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Surface Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation to the Shoulder After Acute Stroke

Background and Purpose— Surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation (sNMES) after stroke aims to improve upper limb function and reduce shoulder pain, but current evidence of effectiveness is inconclusive. We have undertaken a randomized controlled trial to evaluate sNMES to the shoulder after acute stroke. Methods— One hundred seventy-six patients, within 10 days of stroke onset, were randomized to receive sNMES or placebo in addition to stroke unit care. The primary outcome measure was upper limb function measured by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) 3 months after stroke. Secondary outcome measures included other measures of upper limb function, upper limb impairment, pain, disability, and global health status. Outcome assessments were blinded. Results— There was no difference in arm function between groups in terms of the primary outcome measure. The median ARAT at 3 months was 50 in the intervention group and 55.5 in the control group (P=0.068). Significant differences were seen at 3 months in favor of the control group for other measures of arm function and impairment: grasp and gross movement subsections of the ARAT, Frenchay Arm Test, and the arm subsection of the Motricity Index. Secondary analysis suggested that these differences were most marked in subjects with severe initial upper limb weakness. Conclusions— A 4-week program of sNMES to the shoulder after acute stroke does not improve functional outcome and may worsen arm function in severely impaired stroke patients. “Routine” use of sNMES to the proximal affected upper limb after acute stroke cannot be recommended.

Active and passive scapulohumeral movement in healthy persons : A comparison

OBJECTIVES Clinical studies investigating shoulder complaints have found that active exercises and passive manipulation are not equally effective treatments, perhaps because active and passive movements align the individual shoulder girdle components differently. This study sought to investigate whether a significant difference exists in scapulohumeral rhythm of the healthy shoulder when the humerus is elevated actively or passively. STUDY DESIGN Both shoulders of 10 healthy volunteers (9 men; mean age 50 yrs) were studied using an electromagnetic coordinate system to locate the position of the scapula relative to the humerus and trunk. Scapula position in three dimensions was recorded at 10 degrees intervals during active and passive humeral elevation in the coronal plane between 10 degrees and 50 degrees. Each shoulder was measured three times. RESULTS Analysis of variance showed that in all three planes of scapula movement (lateral rotation, backward tip, and retraction) the components of variance attributable to the differences in active and passive movement were less than 5%. CONCLUSIONS During humeral elevation between 10 degrees and 50 degrees no significant difference exists between active and passive shoulder complex motion in healthy individuals. These findings may help to explain why passive manipulation is an effective treatment for shoulder complaints.

Rehabilitation of older patients: day hospital compared with rehabilitation at home. Clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVES to test the hypothesis that older people and their informal carers are not disadvantaged by home-based rehabilitation (HBR) relative to day hospital rehabilitation (DHR). DESIGN pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING four geriatric day hospitals and four home rehabilitation teams in England. PARTICIPANTS eighty-nine patients referred for multidisciplinary rehabilitation. The target sample size was 460. INTERVENTION multidisciplinary rehabilitation either in the home or in the day hospital. MEASUREMENTS the primary outcome measure was the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale (NEADL). Secondary outcome measures included EQ-5D, hospital anxiety and depression scale, therapy outcome measures, hospital admissions and the General Health Questionnaire for carers. RESULTS at the primary end point of 6 months NEADL scores were not significantly in favour of HBR cf. DHR; mean difference -2.139 (95% confidence interval -6.87 to 2.59, P = 0.37). A post hoc analysis suggested non-inferiority for HBR for NEADL but there was considerable statistical uncertainty. CONCLUSION taken together the statistical analyses and lack of power of the trial outcomes do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that patients in receipt of HBR are disadvantaged compared with those receiving DHR.

Remote specialist assessment for intravenous thrombolysis of acute ischaemic stroke by telephone

Objective To describe the process, efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke in an emergency department (ED) setting with remote specialist support through structured telephone consultation. Design Retrospective case series. Setting Three EDs within a single stroke service in northern England. Participants Patients with acute stroke given intravenous thrombolytic therapy between 6 September 2007 and 1 October 2010. Outcome measures Combined death and dependency at 90 days (0–2 on the modified Rankin Scale for a good outcome vs 3–6 for a poor outcome), door-to-needle time, neurological impairment and presence of treatment related haemorrhage. Results 192 patients received intravenous thrombolysis. 94/178 (53%) were treated after remote specialist assessment. Data available from 178 patients showed similar proportions with a good outcome after each mode of assessment (56% in person and 48% by telephone). The median door-to-needle time was 8 min faster in the group assessed in person (65 vs 73 min by telephone) but there was no difference in neurological outcome or symptomatic haemorrhage. After review in person, the stroke specialist tended to treat patients with a higher median modified Rankin Scale (1 vs 0 by telephone). Conclusion In a single stroke service the clinical outcomes of treatment with intravenous thrombolysis were similar whether assessment was performed after specialist review in person or via a telemedicine service consisting of ED staff training, telephone consultation and remote review of brain imaging by a stroke specialist.

Response to Letter by Page and Chae

Response: We would challenge the view of Professors Page and Chae that our study is seriously flawed. The study is a pragmatic clinical trial to answer a clinically relevant question—does surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation (sNMES) applied to the shoulder within 10 days of stroke improve upper limb function?1 Features of the study include a placebo-control blinded-outcome assessment and measurement of carryover effect. The study has adequate statistical power. During rehabilitation, stroke patients wish to regain useful upper limb function. As Page and Chae rightly point out, sNMES has been shown to improve glenohumeral subluxation and range of movement but it should not be assumed that this translates into sustained functional benefits or important clinical gain.2–4 Because our research question related to upper limb function, it was appropriate to use the Action Research Arm Test, which is a validated measure of arm function, as the primary outcome measure. Page and Chae wrongly state …