0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A scoping review on examination approaches for identifying tactile deficits at the upper extremity in individuals with stroke

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Accurate perception of tactile stimuli is essential for performing and learning activities of daily living. Through this scoping review, we sought to summarize existing examination approaches for identifying tactile deficits at the upper extremity in individuals with stroke. The goal was to identify current limitations and future research needs for designing more comprehensive examination tools.

          Methods

          A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework and the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A database search for tactile examination approaches at the upper extremity of individuals with stroke was conducted using Medline (Ovid), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL Plus with Full Text (Ebsco), Scopus (Elsevier), PsycInfo (Ebsco), and Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global. Original research and review articles that involved adults (18 years or older) with stroke, and performed tactile examinations at the upper extremity were eligible for inclusion. Data items extracted from the selected articles included: if the examination was behavioral in nature and involved neuroimaging, the extent to which the arm participated during the examination, the number of possible outcomes of the examination, the type(s) of tactile stimulation equipment used, the location(s) along the arm examined, the peripheral nerves targeted for examination, and if any comparison was made with the non-paretic arm or with the arms of individuals who are neurotypical.

          Results

          Twenty-two articles met the inclusion criteria and were accepted in this review. Most examination approaches were behavioral in nature and involved self-reporting of whether a tactile stimulus was felt while the arm remained passive (i.e., no volitional muscle activity). Typically, the number of possible outcomes with these behavioral approaches were limited (2-3), whereas the neuroimaging approaches had many more possible outcomes ( \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$>15$$\end{document} ). Tactile examinations were conducted mostly at the distal locations along the arm (finger or hand) without targeting any specific peripheral nerve. Although a majority of articles compared paretic and non-paretic arms, most did not compare outcomes to a control group of individuals who are neurotypical.

          Discussion

          Our findings noted that most upper extremity tactile examinations are behavioral approaches, which are subjective in nature, lack adequate resolution, and are insufficient to identify the underlying neural mechanisms of tactile deficits. Also, most examinations are administered at distal locations of the upper extremity when the examinee’s arm is relaxed (passive). Further research is needed to develop better tactile examination tools that combine behavioral responses and neurophysiological outcomes, and allow volitional tactile exploration. Approaches that include testing of multiple body locations/nerves along the upper extremity, provide higher resolution of outcomes, and consider normative comparisons with individuals who are neurotypical may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the tactile deficits occurring following a stroke.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12984-024-01397-8.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor function after stroke: standardized training procedure for clinical practice and clinical trials.

              Outcome measurement fidelity within and between sites of multi-site, randomized, clinical trials is an essential element to meaningful trial outcomes. As important are the methods developed for randomized, clinical trials that can have practical utility for clinical practice. A standardized measurement method and rater training program were developed for the total Fugl-Meyer motor and sensory assessments; inter-rater reliability was used to test program effectiveness. Fifteen individuals with hemiparetic stroke, 17 trained physical therapists across 5 regional clinical sites, and an expert rater participated in an inter-rater reliability study of the Fugl-Meyer motor (total, upper extremity, and lower extremity subscores) and sensory (total, light touch, and proprioception subscores) assessments. Intra-rater reliability for the expert rater was high for the motor and sensory scores (range, 0.95-1.0). Inter-rater agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, 2, 1) between expert and therapist raters was high for the motor scores (total, 0.98; upper extremity, 0.99; lower extremity, 0.91) and sensory scores (total, 0.93; light touch, 0.87; proprioception, 0.96). Standardized measurement methods and training of therapist assessors for a multi-site, rehabilitation, randomized, clinical trial resulted in high inter-rater reliability for the Fugl-Meyer motor and sensory assessments. Poststroke sensorimotor impairment severity can be reliably assessed for clinical practice or rehabilitation research with these methods.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                gurari@vt.edu
                Journal
                J Neuroeng Rehabil
                J Neuroeng Rehabil
                Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
                BioMed Central (London )
                1743-0003
                8 June 2024
                8 June 2024
                2024
                : 21
                : 99
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Physical Therapy, Radford University, ( https://ror.org/04647g470) Radford, Virginia USA
                [2 ]Neuroscience, Northwestern University, ( https://ror.org/000e0be47) Evanston, Illinois USA
                [3 ]Neuroscience, Virginia Tech, ( https://ror.org/02smfhw86) Blacksburg, Virginia USA
                [4 ]Engineering Mechanics, Virginia Tech, ( https://ror.org/02smfhw86) Blacksburg, Virginia USA
                [5 ]Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center, Northwestern University, ( https://ror.org/000e0be47) Evanston, Illinois USA
                [6 ]Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Northwestern University, ( https://ror.org/000e0be47) Chicago, Illinois USA
                [7 ]Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics, Virginia Tech, ( https://ror.org/02smfhw86) Blacksburg, Virginia USA
                Article
                1397
                10.1186/s12984-024-01397-8
                11162071
                38851741
                c895f7bf-4622-491b-9146-db6d05df7bf8
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 1 February 2024
                : 31 May 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: K25HD096116
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100014523, Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science;
                Award ID: Junior Faculty Program
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Neurosciences
                Neurosciences

                Comments

                Comment on this article