PURPOSE: To identify and evaluate the lower extremity amputee (LEA) rehabilitation outcome measurement instruments that quantify those outcomes that have been classified within the ICF category of activities. This was done to assist the clinicians in the selection of the most appropriate instrument based upon four determinants of successful LEA rehabilitation and outcome measurement. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature associated with outcome measurement in LEA rehabilitation was conducted. Only articles containing data related to metric properties (reliability, validity or responsiveness) for an instrument were included. Articles were identified by electronic and hand-searching techniques and were subsequently classified first according to the ICF and then by their clinical use. RESULTS: Seventeen instruments were identified that were classified into one of (A) walk tests, (B) mobility grades and (C) indices (generic and amputee-specific). Evidence about metric properties and clinical utility was summarised in tables which formed the basis for conclusions and recommendations pertaining to LEA rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: All instruments examined have the potential for some use within the initial rehabilitation trial following amputation. There is a universal absence of quality evidence demonstrating responsiveness and most instruments would benefit from further investigation to better define their optimal use.
PURPOSE: To identify and evaluate the lower extremity amputee (LEA) rehabilitation outcome measurement instruments that quantify those outcomes that have been classified within the ICF category of activities. This was done to assist the clinicians in the selection of the most appropriate instrument based upon four determinants of successful LEA rehabilitation and outcome measurement. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature associated with outcome measurement in LEA rehabilitation was conducted. Only articles containing data related to metric properties (reliability, validity or responsiveness) for an instrument were included. Articles were identified by electronic and hand-searching techniques and were subsequently classified first according to the ICF and then by their clinical use. RESULTS: Seventeen instruments were identified that were classified into one of (A) walk tests, (B) mobility grades and (C) indices (generic and amputee-specific). Evidence about metric properties and clinical utility was summarised in tables which formed the basis for conclusions and recommendations pertaining to LEA rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: All instruments examined have the potential for some use within the initial rehabilitation trial following amputation. There is a universal absence of quality evidence demonstrating responsiveness and most instruments would benefit from further investigation to better define their optimal use.
Authors: Jaclyn Megan Sions; Emma Haldane Beisheim; Tara Jo Manal; Sarah Carolyn Smith; John Robert Horne; Frank Bernard Sarlo Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Cory L Christiansen; Matthew J Miller; Amanda M Murray; Ryan O Stephenson; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley; William R Hiatt; Margaret L Schenkman Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Bita Imam; William C Miller; Heather C Finlayson; Janice J Eng; Michael Wc Payne; Tal Jarus; Charles H Goldsmith; Ian M Mitchell Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2014-12-22