Test–retest reliability of computerised hand dynamometry in adults with acquired brain injury

Abstract

The investigated dynamic computerised hand dynamometry protocol showed fair/good to excellent levels of test-retest reliability in control participants and in subjects with upper motor neuron syndrome following acquired brain injury.

Quantifying patterns of upper limb motor change following BTX-A injection in adult spasticity management

“…Using a measure that solely assessed the reduction in muscle overactivity would have missed key information on how UL functional movement patterns changed with a reduction in spasticity. This reinforces the suggestion that assessing spasticity interventions at the WHO ICF Activity level requires the simultaneous measurement of both positive and negative UMN features [19] and further suggests that active/ dynamic clinical assessments are crucial for interpreting the reasons for any observed change.…”

“…Alternative measures that attempt to measure spasticity dynamically during active UL use exist (e.g. Electromyography [16], Dynamic Computerized hand Dynamometry [17][18][19] and kinematics [20]); however, these measures require specialized equipment and data analysis methods, currently limiting them to research settings.…”

“…These difficulties have led authors to encourage the development/use of outcome measures that are sensitive [26], functionally relevant to spasticity [27], are based on the patient and team negotiated goal-focused outcomes [26,28,29] and able to simultaneously measure both positive and negative UMN features [19] and are practical in nature [30]. A goal-directed approach should also be extended to determining BTX-A injection strategy; for example, muscle selection and dose, however, there is no current evidence to support this concept [27].…”

Computerised pinch dynamometry in the assessment of adult hand spasticity

“…The more limited number of studies reporting pinch dynamometry test–retest reliability show similar data to the current study (ICC = 0.92–0.96; Servais et al ., , ICC = 0.86–0.93; McDonnell, Hillier, Ridding & Miles, ). Furthermore, the test–retest reliability demonstrated by DCD(pinch) is consistent with that of DCD(grasp) ( W = 0.69–0.97) obtained in previous research (Barden et al ., ).…”

“…Participant's fingers and thumb remained in contact with the pinch meter throughout the ten cycles. Pinch meter data collection was conducted immediately following DCD(grasp) (Barden et al ., ,b), ensuring that participants had comprehended instructions. Participants completed testing in the lateral pinch position followed by the pincer position with the dominant hand for controls or the unaffected hand for ABI participants followed by the non‐dominant or affected hand for control and ABI participants, respectively.…”