Maurits H Hoonhorst1, Rinske H Nijland2, Jan S van den Berg3, Cornelis H Emmelot4, Boudewijn J Kollen5, Gert Kwakkel6. 1. Vogellanden Center for Rehabilitation, Zwolle, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.h.w.j.hoonhorst@vogellanden.nl. 2. Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center | Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Neurology, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 5. Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center | Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Research Institute MOVE, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal cutoff scores for the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) with regard to predicting no, poor, limited, notable, or full upper-limb capacity according to frequently used cutoff points for the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) at 6 months poststroke. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Rehabilitation center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=460) with a first-ever ischemic stroke at 6 months poststroke. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Based on the ARAT classification of poor to full upper-limb capacity, receiver operating characteristic curves were used to calculate the area under the curve, optimal cutoff points for the FMA-UE were determined, and a weighted kappa was used to assess the agreement. RESULTS: FMA-UE scores of 0 through 22 represent no upper-limb capacity (ARAT 0-10); scores of 23 through 31 represent poor capacity (ARAT 11-21); scores of 32 through 47 represent limited capacity (ARAT 22-42); scores of 48 through 52 represent notable capacity (ARAT 43-54); and scores of 53 through 66 represent full upper-limb capacity (ARAT 55-57). Overall, areas under the curve ranged from .916 (95% confidence interval [CI], .890-.943) to .988 (95% CI, .978-.998; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable overlap in the area under the curve between the ARAT and FMA-UE. FMA-UE scores >31 points correspond to no to poor arm-hand capacity (ie, ≤21 points) on the ARAT, whereas FMA-UE scores >31 correspond to limited to full arm-hand capacity (ie, ≥22 points) on the ARAT.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal cutoff scores for the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) with regard to predicting no, poor, limited, notable, or full upper-limb capacity according to frequently used cutoff points for the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) at 6 months poststroke. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Rehabilitation center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=460) with a first-ever ischemic stroke at 6 months poststroke. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Based on the ARAT classification of poor to full upper-limb capacity, receiver operating characteristic curves were used to calculate the area under the curve, optimal cutoff points for the FMA-UE were determined, and a weighted kappa was used to assess the agreement. RESULTS: FMA-UE scores of 0 through 22 represent no upper-limb capacity (ARAT 0-10); scores of 23 through 31 represent poor capacity (ARAT 11-21); scores of 32 through 47 represent limited capacity (ARAT 22-42); scores of 48 through 52 represent notable capacity (ARAT 43-54); and scores of 53 through 66 represent full upper-limb capacity (ARAT 55-57). Overall, areas under the curve ranged from .916 (95% confidence interval [CI], .890-.943) to .988 (95% CI, .978-.998; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable overlap in the area under the curve between the ARAT and FMA-UE. FMA-UE scores >31 points correspond to no to poor arm-hand capacity (ie, ≤21 points) on the ARAT, whereas FMA-UE scores >31 correspond to limited to full arm-hand capacity (ie, ≥22 points) on the ARAT.
Authors: Margit Alt Murphy; Steve Murphy; Hanna C Persson; Ulla-Britt Bergström; Katharina Stibrant Sunnerhagen Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Jose E Tecuapetla-Trejo; Jessica Cantillo-Negrete; Paul Carrillo-Mora; Raquel Valdés-Cristerna; Emmanuel Ortega-Robles; Oscar Arias-Carrion; Ruben I Carino-Escobar Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Sangwoo Park; Michaela Fraser; Lynne M Weber; Cassie Meeker; Lauri Bishop; Daniel Geller; Joel Stein; Matei Ciocarlie Journal: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Lara McManus; Xiaogang Hu; William Z Rymer; Nina L Suresh; Madeleine M Lowery Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 3.169