INTRODUCTION: Spasticity is a sensory-motor disorder that affects about 85% of the patients with multiple sclerosis and between 65-78% of those with spinal cord injury, among other neurological conditions. Although hypertonia is generally easy to recognise clinically, quantifying it is quite a complex matter. The large number of clinical scales that exist and their subjectivity, the discrepancy between the spasticity perceived by the patient and the clinical measurement, as well as the lack of a general correlation between the neurophysiological measures and hypertonia, all make it especially difficult, in methodological terms, to perform a valid, reliable measurement of the degree of spasticity presented by the patient. AIMS: To review the main methods of evaluating spasticity published in the scientific literature and to carry out a description and critical analysis of their advantages, shortcomings and metric properties in patients with a neurological pathology. DEVELOPMENT: The different methods described for evaluating spasticity are reviewed and classified in three broad groups, namely, clinical scales specifically designed for such a purpose, biomechanical tests and neurophysiological methods. CONCLUSIONS: There is little agreement on the definition of spasticity and the need for the evaluators' training and experience when it comes to evaluating it. We recommend using a combination of the different evaluation instruments, such as the scales, biomechanical methods and neurophysiological measures reported in this study, to carry out a general diagnosis of the degree of spasticity present in the patient.
INTRODUCTION:Spasticity is a sensory-motor disorder that affects about 85% of the patients with multiple sclerosis and between 65-78% of those with spinal cord injury, among other neurological conditions. Although hypertonia is generally easy to recognise clinically, quantifying it is quite a complex matter. The large number of clinical scales that exist and their subjectivity, the discrepancy between the spasticity perceived by the patient and the clinical measurement, as well as the lack of a general correlation between the neurophysiological measures and hypertonia, all make it especially difficult, in methodological terms, to perform a valid, reliable measurement of the degree of spasticity presented by the patient. AIMS: To review the main methods of evaluating spasticity published in the scientific literature and to carry out a description and critical analysis of their advantages, shortcomings and metric properties in patients with a neurological pathology. DEVELOPMENT: The different methods described for evaluating spasticity are reviewed and classified in three broad groups, namely, clinical scales specifically designed for such a purpose, biomechanical tests and neurophysiological methods. CONCLUSIONS: There is little agreement on the definition of spasticity and the need for the evaluators' training and experience when it comes to evaluating it. We recommend using a combination of the different evaluation instruments, such as the scales, biomechanical methods and neurophysiological measures reported in this study, to carry out a general diagnosis of the degree of spasticity present in the patient.
Authors: Maria Jesus Vinolo-Gil; Manuel Rodríguez-Huguet; Cristina García-Muñoz; Gloria Gonzalez-Medina; Francisco Javier Martin-Vega; Rocío Martín-Valero Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Elisabeth Bravo-Esteban; Julian Taylor; Manuel Aleixandre; Cristina Simon-Martínez; Diego Torricelli; José L Pons; Julio Gómez-Soriano Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Filipe O Barroso; Diego Torricelli; Elisabeth Bravo-Esteban; Julian Taylor; Julio Gómez-Soriano; Cristina Santos; Juan C Moreno; José L Pons Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Diego Serrano-Muñoz; Julio Gómez-Soriano; Elisabeth Bravo-Esteban; María Vázquez-Fariñas; Julian Taylor; Juan Avendaño-Coy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Carlos Luque-Moreno; Fátima Cano-Bravo; Pawel Kiper; Ignacio Solís-Marcos; Jose A Moral-Munoz; Michela Agostini; Ángel Oliva-Pascual-Vaca; Andrea Turolla Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-12-25 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Josefa Gonzalez-Santos; Raul Soto-Camara; Paula Rodriguez-Fernández; Maria Jimenez-Barrios; Jeronimo Gonzalez-Bernal; Carla Collazo-Riobo; Maha Jahouh; Yolanda Bravo-Anguiano; Jose M Trejo-Gabriel-Galan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 2.692