BACKGROUND: Efficacy of task-oriented training can be reliably trusted only when the inherent measurement variability is determined. The Actual Amount of Use Test (AAUT) and the Motor Activity Log (MAL) have been used together as measures of spontaneous arm use after an intervention; however, the minimal detectable change (MDC) of AAUT and MAL has not been addressed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the MDC₉₀ of the AAUT and the MAL in the context of a randomized controlled trial of a neurorehabilitation intervention, the Extremity Constraint-Induced Therapy Evaluation trial. METHODS: A preplanned secondary analysis was conducted using pre-post test data from the control group. Estimated MDC₉₀ were normalized to the maximum value of the scale of the AAUT and the MAL for each subscale: amount of use (AAUTa, MALa) and quality of movement (AAUTq, MALq). RESULTS: . The MDC₉₀ of the AAUTq and the MALq were 14.4% and 15.4%, respectively. However, the MDC₉₀ required greater change for the AAUTa (24.2%) than the MALa (16.8%). The training-induced spontaneous arm use exceeded the MDC₉₀ for the MAL but fell below that for the AAUT immediately after the intervention and at 1-year follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: The greater variability and insensitivity to treatment effect for the AAUTa is likely because of the low resolution of its scoring system. As such, there is a considerable need to develop valid and reliable tools that capture purposeful arm use outside the laboratory, perhaps through leveraging new sensing technologies with objective activity monitoring.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Efficacy of task-oriented training can be reliably trusted only when the inherent measurement variability is determined. The Actual Amount of Use Test (AAUT) and the Motor Activity Log (MAL) have been used together as measures of spontaneous arm use after an intervention; however, the minimal detectable change (MDC) of AAUT and MAL has not been addressed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the MDC₉₀ of the AAUT and the MAL in the context of a randomized controlled trial of a neurorehabilitation intervention, the Extremity Constraint-Induced Therapy Evaluation trial. METHODS: A preplanned secondary analysis was conducted using pre-post test data from the control group. Estimated MDC₉₀ were normalized to the maximum value of the scale of the AAUT and the MAL for each subscale: amount of use (AAUTa, MALa) and quality of movement (AAUTq, MALq). RESULTS: . The MDC₉₀ of the AAUTq and the MALq were 14.4% and 15.4%, respectively. However, the MDC₉₀ required greater change for the AAUTa (24.2%) than the MALa (16.8%). The training-induced spontaneous arm use exceeded the MDC₉₀ for the MAL but fell below that for the AAUT immediately after the intervention and at 1-year follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: The greater variability and insensitivity to treatment effect for the AAUTa is likely because of the low resolution of its scoring system. As such, there is a considerable need to develop valid and reliable tools that capture purposeful arm use outside the laboratory, perhaps through leveraging new sensing technologies with objective activity monitoring.
Authors: Shyamal Patel; Richard Hughes; Todd Hester; Joel Stein; Metin Akay; Jennifer Dy; Paolo Bonato Journal: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Date: 2010
Authors: E Taub; N E Miller; T A Novack; E W Cook; W C Fleming; C S Nepomuceno; J S Connell; J E Crago Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Carolee J Winstein; J Philip Miller; Sarah Blanton; Edward Taub; Gitendra Uswatte; David Morris; Deborah Nichols; Steven Wolf Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Shannon Pike; Anne Cusick; Kylie Wales; Lisa Cameron; Lynne Turner-Stokes; Stephen Ashford; Natasha A Lannin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Emily C Dore; Molly Marino; Pengsheng Ni; Julieta Lomelin-Gascon; Lily Sonis; Flor Amaya; Colleen M Ryan; Jeffrey C Schneider; Alan M Jette; Lewis E Kazis Journal: Burns Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 2.609