Do stroke survivors with upper extremity spasticity benefit from botulinum toxin? An observational study exploring daily activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the benefit of routine botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) treatment for the daily activities of stroke survivors with upper extremity spasticity and to facilitate 'patient-centred' and daily life-oriented spasticity management. \n \nMETHODS: A quantitative observational study over one injection cycle performed in a German spasticity outpatient clinic. Participants (n=27) were assessed at baseline (T0), 4-6 (Tmax1) and 12-14 weeks (T2) after injection. Primary outcome measures were Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) and Arm Activity Measure (ArmA). Secondary measures included Resistance to Passive Movement Scale (REPAS), Motricity Index (MI), SF-12v2 Health Survey, Global Clinical Impression (GCI) and importance and satisfaction. \n \nRESULTS: Significant improvements were observed from T0 to Tmax1 and T0 to T2, but not from Tmax1 to T2 for COPM, ArmA part A and REPAS. Goals were attained by 33.3% of participants. Importance and satisfaction with the treatment was high. GCI was rated "good" to "very good" by 45.8% to 75%. ArmA part B, MI and SF-12v2 showed no change. \n \nCONCLUSIONS: Routine BoNT-A treatment with outpatient therapy improved daily activities, being clinically significant for up to 50% of participants. ArmA and COPM are suitable measures to facilitate 'patient-centred' and daily life-focused routine spasticity management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".