MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of the complex physical therapy on the upper extremity function, functional independence and cognition in post-stroke patients

2021· article· en· W3165574651 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
I. F. Uwa-Agbonikhena, V. A. Gryb, V. R. Gerasymchuk, Marta Kupnovytska-Sabadosh, L. T. Maksymchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueEUREKA Health Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Physical medicine and rehabilitationCognitionStroke (engine)Physical therapyMedicinePsychologyNeurosciencePhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motor dysfunction and cognitive impairment (CI) are the most prevalent and disabling among the stroke consequences. CI decreases the effectivity of motor rehabilitation, but motor dysfunction itself may also influence the manifestations and progression of CI. So development and study of novel physical therapy tactics, which are aiming to target both of these syndromes, becomes a subject of great interest nowadays.
 The aim of study was to evaluate the impact of different physical therapy approaches on the upper extremity function, cognition and functional independence in patients in 1 year after ischemic stroke.
 Materials and methods. Totally there were 72 patients examined in the 1-year period after first-ever anterior circulation ischemic stroke. Neurological status, upper extremity function and functional independence were assessed with the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA), modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and the Functional Independence Measurement (FIM). Cognitive function was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), Trail-making Test A and B tests (TMT). Patients in Group 1 received secondary stroke prevention therapy and performed the exercises complex for general muscle function improvement for 2 months; patients in Group 2 also performed the exercise complex for paretic hand function improvement for 2 months.
 Results. After 2 months of physical therapy a significant increase of the FIM “Self-care”, “Transfer” and therefore subtotal motor and total scores was observed in patients in Group 2; in Group 1 significant improvement was observed only in “Transfer” and subtotal motor scores. Adding of the hand exercise to the physical therapy complex (Group 2) appeared to be more beneficial for the upper extremity motor function. Patients in Group 2 after 2 months showed increase of the FMA “Wrist” score by 40 % (p<0.05), “Hand” score by 42.8 % (p<0.01) and “Total motor function” by 30.1 % (p<0.05), and the “Total motor function” score in Group 2 was 10.9 % higher in comparison with the Group 1 (p<0.05). In cognitive status significant differences compared to baseline level were observed only in Group 2; MoCA score increased by 14.3 % (p<0.05) and TMT-B performance time decreased by 14.8 % (p<0.05). Baseline MoCA score correlated with FMA “Wrist” (r=0.32; p=0.028), “Hand” (r=0.49; p=0.001) and “Total motor function” (r=0.46; p=0.004) scores. TMT-B score showed significant correlation with the FMA “Wrist” (r=-0.032; p=0.025), “Hand” (-0.45; p=0.009), “Speed/coordination” (r=-0.023; p=0.036) and “Total motor function” (r=-0.42; p=0.023).
 Conclusion. Adding of exercise for hand function improvement into the physical therapy complex for post-stroke patients contributes to better upper extremity motor performance and therefore is more favourable for patients’ functional independence. Upper extremity motor impairment, especially hand and wrist dysfunction, are associated with worse cognitive performance. Hand function and fine motor skills improvement could be beneficial for the patients’ cognition. Further research is needed in regard to the prognostic significance of these findings and their impact on the treatment and rehabilitation strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEUREKA Health SciencesSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207