Clinical Outcome Assessments for Spasticity: Review, Critique, and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spasticity is a common feature in patients with disruptions in corticospinal pathways. However, the term is used ambiguously. Here, spasticity is defined as enhanced velocity-dependent stretch reflexes and placed within the context of deforming spastic paresis encompassing other forms of muscle overactivity. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims at evaluating the clinimetric quality of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) for spasticity across different pathologies and to make recommendations for their use. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify COAs used to assess spasticity. An international expert panel evaluated the measurement properties in the included COAs. Recommendations were based on the MDS-COA program methodology based on three criteria: if the COA was (1) applied to patients with spastic paresis, (2) used by others beyond the developers, and (3) determined to be reliable, valid, and sensitive to change in patients with spasticity. RESULTS: We identified 72 COAs of which 17 clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) and 6 patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were reviewed. The Tardieu Scale was the only ClinRO recommended for assessing spasticity. One ClinRO-Composite Spasticity Index-and two PROs-Spasticity 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale and 88-Item Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale-were recommended with caveats. The Ashworth-derived COAs were excluded after evaluation due to their focus on muscle tone rather than spasticity, as defined in this review. CONCLUSIONS: The Tardieu Scale is recommended for assessing spasticity, and two PROs are recommended with caveats. Consistent terminology about the various types of muscle overactivity is necessary to facilitate their assessment and treatment. © 2024 The Author(s). Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".