Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Clinical outcome measures to evaluate the effects of orthotic management post-stroke: a systematic review
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Dept. of Rehabilitation. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. CHILD.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8994-8786
Department of Clinical and Scientific Affairs, Hanger Clinic, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; and Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
2022 (English)In: Disability and Rehabilitation, ISSN 0963-8288, E-ISSN 1464-5165, Vol. 44, no 13, p. 3019-3038Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose

To identify, and classify, according to International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), clinically applicable outcome measures that have been used to evaluate lower limb orthotic management post-stroke and to investigate which outcome measures recorded the largest effect sizes.

Materials and methods

Electronic searches were performed in Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Cinahl, Scopus and Embase databases from inception to May 2020. Articles were included if they investigated clinical outcomes in people post-stroke who had received a lower-limb orthotic intervention.

Results

88 articles underwent full-text review and 54 were included in the review, which was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) principles. 48 different outcome measures were identified; effect sizes were able to be calculated from 39 studies. The most frequently applied outcome measures were the 10-metre Walk Test and the timed-up-and-go test. Outcome measures that recorded large effect sizes in two or more studies were the 10-metre Walk Test, Functional Reach Test, and Physiological Cost Index. When coded according to the ICF, the most frequently represented codes were d450 (Walking) and d455 (moving around).

Conclusions

Results suggest that outcome measures related to mobility (ICF chapter d4) are most often applied to evaluate orthotic management post-stroke. Effect sizes appear to be greatest in outcome measures related to velocity, balance, and energy expenditure.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

  • The 10-meter Walk Test appears to have the greatest effect size when evaluating orthotic management post-stroke.
  • While outcome measures related to mobility are commonly applied when evaluating orthotic management post-stroke, rehabilitation professionals should consider complementing these with measures representing the participation domain of the ICF.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2022. Vol. 44, no 13, p. 3019-3038
Keywords [en]
Orthotic device; AFO; cerebrovascular disorders; outcome assessment; ICF
National Category
Orthopaedics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-51477DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1859630ISI: 000607239500001PubMedID: 33438496Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85099422334Local ID: HOA;intsam;51477OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-51477DiVA, id: diva2:1517294
Available from: 2021-01-13 Created: 2021-01-13 Last updated: 2022-12-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Ramstrand, Nerrolyn

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ramstrand, Nerrolyn
By organisation
HHJ, Dept. of RehabilitationHHJ. CHILD
In the same journal
Disability and Rehabilitation
Orthopaedics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 193 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf