Characteristics Associated with the Differential Activity of Nondominant and Dominant Affected Hands in Patients with Poststroke Right Hemiparesis

Correlation between kinetic and kinematic measures, clinical tests and subjective self-evaluation questionnaires of the affected upper limb in people after stroke

Introduction

Assessment of stroke recovery should include multiple sources of information in order to obtain a complete understanding of the individual's rehabilitation progress. Self-evaluation questionnaires' scores do not always correspond to the scores of commonly used clinical evaluation tools. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between self-evaluation questionnaires, clinical tests, and kinematic and kinetic analyses of the affected upper limb after stroke, and to determine the correlation between these measures and self-reported general function 2-4 years after the stroke.

Methods

Twenty-six subjects recovering from stroke were included in the study. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to measure the correlation between Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), Motor activity Log (MAL), Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Action Reach Arm Test (ARAT) scores, and kinematic and kinetic analyses. A logistic regression was used to assess the extent to which these measures may predict the participants' functional self-reported status 2-4 years post stroke.

Results

Sections regarding hand function, hand force and general ADL of the self-evaluation questionnaires correlated with kinematic variables. However, only questionnaires that focus on hand function correlated with clinical tests. Mean and maximal hand velocity had the strongest correlations with self-evaluation questionnaires and with the clinical tests, more than other kinematic variables. Self-evaluation questionnaires and clinical tests were found to be correlated with hand kinetic metrics force-to-time ratio and number of force peaks. SIS hand force domain, mean velocity and maximal velocity predicted self-reported general function 2-4 years after the stroke.

Conclusion

Self-evaluation questionnaires should be considered for wider use in the clinical evaluation of a patient's stroke recovery, since they add important information on the individual's functional status, which is not reflected in the clinical tests.

Upper extremity asymmetry due to nerve injuries or central neurologic conditions: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Peripheral nerve injuries and central neurologic conditions can result in extensive disabilities. In cases with unilateral impairment, assessing the asymmetry between the upper extremity has been used to assess outcomes of treatment and severity of injury. A wide variety of validated and novel tests and sensors have been utilized to determine the upper extremity asymmetry. The purpose of this article is to review the literature and define the current state of the art for describing upper extremity asymmetry in patients with peripheral nerve injuries or central neurologic conditions.

METHOD

An electronic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, OVID was performed for publications between 2000 to 2022. Eligibility criteria were subjects with neurological conditions/injuries who were analyzed for dissimilarities in use between the upper extremities. Data related to study population, target condition/injury, types of tests performed, sensors used, real-world data collection, outcome measures of interest, and results of the study were extracted. Sackett's Level of Evidence was used to judge the quality of the articles.

RESULTS

Of the 7281 unique articles, 112 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. Eight target conditions/injuries were identified (Brachial Plexus Injury, Cerebral Palsy, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, Peripheral Nerve Injury, Spinal Cord Injury, Schizophrenia, and stroke). The tests performed were classified into thirteen categories based on the nature of the test and data collected. The general results related to upper extremity asymmetry were listed for all the reviewed articles. Stroke was the most studied condition, followed by cerebral palsy, with kinematics and strength measurement tests being the most frequently used tests. Studies with a level of evidence level II and III increased between 2000 and 2021. The use of real-world evidence-based data, and objective data collection tests also increased in the same period.

CONCLUSION

Adequately powered randomized controlled trials should be used to study upper extremity asymmetry. Neurological conditions other than stroke should be studied further. Upper extremity asymmetry should be measured using objective outcome measures like motion tracking and activity monitoring in the patient's daily living environment.

The Impact of Wearable Technologies in Health Research: Scoping Review

Background

Wearable devices hold great promise, particularly for data generation for cutting-edge health research, and their demand has risen substantially in recent years. However, there is a shortage of aggregated insights into how wearables have been used in health research.

Objective

In this review, we aim to broadly overview and categorize the current research conducted with affordable wearable devices for health research.

Methods

We performed a scoping review to understand the use of affordable, consumer-grade wearables for health research from a population health perspective using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) framework. A total of 7499 articles were found in 4 medical databases (PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and CINAHL). Studies were eligible if they used noninvasive wearables: worn on the wrist, arm, hip, and chest; measured vital signs; and analyzed the collected data quantitatively. We excluded studies that did not use wearables for outcome assessment and prototype studies, devices that cost >€500 (US $570), or obtrusive smart clothing.

Results

We included 179 studies using 189 wearable devices covering 10,835,733 participants. Most studies were observational (128/179, 71.5%), conducted in 2020 (56/179, 31.3%) and in North America (94/179, 52.5%), and 93% (10,104,217/10,835,733) of the participants were part of global health studies. The most popular wearables were fitness trackers (86/189, 45.5%) and accelerometer wearables, which primarily measure movement (49/189, 25.9%). Typical measurements included steps (95/179, 53.1%), heart rate (HR; 55/179, 30.7%), and sleep duration (51/179, 28.5%). Other devices measured blood pressure (3/179, 1.7%), skin temperature (3/179, 1.7%), oximetry (3/179, 1.7%), or respiratory rate (2/179, 1.1%). The wearables were mostly worn on the wrist (138/189, 73%) and cost <€200 (US $228; 120/189, 63.5%). The aims and approaches of all 179 studies revealed six prominent uses for wearables, comprising correlations—wearable and other physiological data (40/179, 22.3%), method evaluations (with subgroups; 40/179, 22.3%), population-based research (31/179, 17.3%), experimental outcome assessment (30/179, 16.8%), prognostic forecasting (28/179, 15.6%), and explorative analysis of big data sets (10/179, 5.6%). The most frequent strengths of affordable wearables were validation, accuracy, and clinical certification (104/179, 58.1%).

Conclusions

Wearables showed an increasingly diverse field of application such as COVID-19 prediction, fertility tracking, heat-related illness, drug effects, and psychological interventions; they also included underrepresented populations, such as individuals with rare diseases. There is a lack of research on wearable devices in low-resource contexts. Fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, we see a shift toward more large-sized, web-based studies where wearables increased insights into the developing pandemic, including forecasting models and the effects of the pandemic. Some studies have indicated that big data extracted from wearables may potentially transform the understanding of population health dynamics and the ability to forecast health trends.

Objective Assessment of Postoperative Morbidity After Breast Cancer Treatments with Wearable Activity Monitors: The "BRACELET" Study

Background

Current validated tools to measure upper limb dysfunction after breast cancer treatment, such as questionnaires, are prone to recall bias and do not enable comparisons between patients. This study aimed to test the feasibility of wearable activity monitors (WAMs) for achieving a continuous, objective assessment of functional recovery by measuring peri-operative physical activity (PA).

Methods

A prospective, single-center, non-randomized, observational study was conducted. Patients undergoing breast and axillary surgery were invited to wear WAMs on both wrists in the peri-operative period and then complete upper limb function (DASH) and quality-of-life (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the construct validity and concurrent validity of WAMs.

Results

The analysis included 39 patients with a mean age of 55 ± 13.2 years. Regain of function on the surgically treated side was observed to be an increase of arm activity as a percentage of preoperative levels, with the greatest increase observed between the postoperative days 1 and 2. The PA was significantly greater on the side not treated by surgery than on the surgically treated side after week 1 (mean PA, 75.8% vs. 62.3%; p < 0.0005) and week 2 (mean PA, 91.6% vs. 77.4%; p < 0.005). Subgroup analyses showed differences in recovery trends between different surgical procedures. Concurrent validity was demonstrated by a significant negative moderate correlation between the PA and DASH questionnaires (R = −0.506; p < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the feasibility and validity of WAMs to objectively measure postoperative recovery of upper limb function after breast surgery, providing a starting point for personalized rehabilitation through early detection of upper limb physical morbidity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10458-4.

The incidence of asymptomatic thrombosis related to peripherally inserted central catheter in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis People's

Aim

To examine the incidence and risk factors for asymptomatic peripherally inserted central catheter‐related thrombosis (PICC‐RT).

Design

We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis following the PRISMA guidelines.

Methods

The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020186732). A systematic search of EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane was performed from inception to 4 June 2020. Meta‐analysis was performed to determine the pooled incidence of asymptomatic PICC‐RT.

Results

Ten studies comprising 1591 participants with 1592 PICCs were included in this meta‐analysis. The pooled incidence of asymptomatic PICC‐RT in adults was 22% (95% CI, 0.17–0.29). The pooled incidence of PICC‐RT in cancer patients was 19% (95% CI, 0.13–0.26). Asymptomatic PICC‐RT mainly occurred in superficial veins. Most asymptomatic thrombosis occurred 3–12 days after the PICC insertion. A higher Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score (ECOG), slower blood flow velocity and left basilic vein were independent risk factors of asymptomatic thrombosis.