Clinical measurement tools to assess trunk performance after stroke: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stroke may result in decreased trunk muscle strength and limited trunk coordination, frequently determining loss of autonomy due to the trunk impairment. Furthermore, sitting balance has been repeatedly identified as an important predictor of motor and functional recovery after stroke. Given the importance of the trunk, it is therefore mandatory that validated tools be available to assess its performance. A systematic review of the currently available clinical measurement tools to assess trunk performance after stroke has been carried out. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the PubMed database from January 2006 to April 2017 to select articles which reported or included a clinical measure of trunk performance used in an adult stroke population. The data collected were integrated with the results of a previous review published in 2006. A total of 302 articles were identified, of which 19 were eligible for inclusion. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Numerous clinical tools have been validated to assess trunk performance after stroke, including the Trunk Control Test, the Trunk Impairment Scale, the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke, the Ottawa Sitting Scale, the Modified Functional Reach Test, the Function In Sitting Test, the Physical Ability Scale, the Trunk Recovery Scale, the Balance Assessment in Sitting and Standing Positions, and the and Sitting-Rising Test. CONCLUSIONS: Several scales and tests have been demonstrated to be valid for assessing trunk performance in stroke. Some of these have already been refined by Rasch analysis to increase their psychometric characteristics. Further psychometric analysis of these tools in large and different samples is, however, still needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".