OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinimetric properties and clinical applicability of published tools for 'quantifying' the degree of lateropulsion or pusher syndrome following stroke. DATA SOURCES: Search through electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index) with the terms lateropulsion, pushing, pusher syndrome, validity, reliability, internal consistency, responsiveness, sensitivity, specificity, posture and stroke. Databases were searched from their inception to October 2008. REVIEW METHODS: Abstracts were selected by one author. A panel of experts then determined which should be included in this review. Five abstracts were reviewed and the panel agreed to omit one abstract because those authors did not write a full manuscript. The panel critiqued manuscripts according to predetermined criteria about clinical and clinimetric properties. RESULTS: Four manuscripts referencing three tools for examining lateropulsion were found. Validity and reliability data support the clinical use of the Scale for Contraversive Pushing, the Modified Scale for Contraversive Pushing and the Burke Lateropulsion Scale. The Scale for Contraversive Pushing has the most extensive testing of clinimetric properties. The other tools show promising preliminary evidence of clinical and research utility. More testing is needed with larger, more diverse samples. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The Scale for Contraversive Pushing, the Modified Scale for Contraversive Pushing and the Burke Lateropulsion Scale are reliable and valid measures with good clinical applicability. Larger, more varied samples should be used to better delineate responsiveness and other clinimetric properties of these examination tools.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinimetric properties and clinical applicability of published tools for 'quantifying' the degree of lateropulsion or pusher syndrome following stroke. DATA SOURCES: Search through electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index) with the terms lateropulsion, pushing, pusher syndrome, validity, reliability, internal consistency, responsiveness, sensitivity, specificity, posture and stroke. Databases were searched from their inception to October 2008. REVIEW METHODS: Abstracts were selected by one author. A panel of experts then determined which should be included in this review. Five abstracts were reviewed and the panel agreed to omit one abstract because those authors did not write a full manuscript. The panel critiqued manuscripts according to predetermined criteria about clinical and clinimetric properties. RESULTS: Four manuscripts referencing three tools for examining lateropulsion were found. Validity and reliability data support the clinical use of the Scale for Contraversive Pushing, the Modified Scale for Contraversive Pushing and the Burke Lateropulsion Scale. The Scale for Contraversive Pushing has the most extensive testing of clinimetric properties. The other tools show promising preliminary evidence of clinical and research utility. More testing is needed with larger, more diverse samples. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: The Scale for Contraversive Pushing, the Modified Scale for Contraversive Pushing and the Burke Lateropulsion Scale are reliable and valid measures with good clinical applicability. Larger, more varied samples should be used to better delineate responsiveness and other clinimetric properties of these examination tools.