Upper Limb Prosthetic Outcome Measures

Lindner, Helen Y; Nätterlund, Birgitta; Hermansson, Liselotte

doi:10.3109/03093641003776976

Cited by 80 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(142 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, we follow and extend the suggestion put forth in several recent articles that evaluated measures of prosthesis functioning at the clinical level [1,[3][4]. In these articles, it was concluded that several outcome measures should be combined to provide a complete picture of the functional ability of a prosthesis user instead of using only one outcome measure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures

Bouwsema

Kyberd

Hill

et al. 2012

JRRD

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-To obtain more insight into how the skill level of an upper-limb myoelectric prosthesis user is composed, the current study aimed to (1) portray prosthetic handling at different levels of description, (2) relate results of the clinical level to kinematic measures, and (3) identify specific parameters in these measures that characterize the skill level of a prosthesis user. Six experienced transradial myoelectric prosthesis users performed a clinical test (Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure [SHAP]) and two grasping tasks. Kinematic measures were end point kinematics, joint angles, grasp force control, and gaze behavior. The results of the clinical and kinematic measures were in broad agreement with each other. Participants who scored higher on the SHAP showed overall better performance on the kinematic measures. They had smaller movement times, had better grip force control, and needed less visual attention on the hand. The results showed that time was a key parameter in prosthesis use and should be one of the main focus aspects of rehabilitation. The insights from this study are useful in rehabilitation practice because they allow therapists to specifically focus on certain parameters that may result in a higher level of skill for the prosthesis user.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures

Bouwsema

Kyberd

Hill

et al. 2012

JRRD

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different instruments have been used to measure functional outcomes in users of upper-limb prostheses [5][6][7]. Although some of them have been used for many years in clinical practice, their validity evidence for the upper-limb prosthetic group has not been fully investigated [5,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Lindner¹,

Langius‐Eklöf

Hermansson

2014

J Rehabil Res Dev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control (ACMC) is an observation-based tool that evaluates ability to control a myoelectric prosthetic hand. Validity evidence led to ACMC version 2.0, but the test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the ACMC have never been evaluated. Investigation of rater agreements in this version was also needed because it has new definitions in certain rating categories and items. Upper-limb prosthesis users (n = 25, 15 congenital, 10 acquired; mean age 27.5 yr) performed one standardized activity twice, 2 to 5 wk apart. Activity performances were videorecorded and assessed by two ACMC raters. Data were analyzed by weighted kappa, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman method. For test-retest reliability, weighted kappa agreements were fair to excellent (0.52 to 1.00), ICC 2,1 was 0.94, and one user was located outside the limits of agreement in the Bland-Altman plot. MDC 95 was less than or equal to 0.55 logits (1 rater) and 0.69 logits (2 raters). For interrater reliability, weighted kappa agreements were fair to excellent in both sessions (0.44 to 1.00), and ICC 2,1 was 0.95 (test) and 0.92 (retest). Intrarater agreement (rater 1) was also excellent (ICC 3,1 0.98). Evidence regarding the reliability of the ACMC is satisfactory and MDC 95 can be used to indicate change.

show abstract

“…Kohler et al 16 wrote about core set development for people following amputation and two studies linked outcome measures to ICF. 5,6 Raggi et al 24 found the WHO-DAS II, an ICF-based disability instrument to be sensitive to the influence of assistive technology on person's functioning, but none of the included subjects had a prosthesis or orthosis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Almost all these outcome measures were developed before the publication of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) 4 and most of them do not cover the full spectrum of human functioning. 5,6 The main goal of prostheses and orthoses is to improve individual functioning. Prostheses replace an amputated part of the body and try to restore the lost body function and decrease the problems with activities and participation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) be used in a prosthetics and orthotics outpatient clinic?

Burger

2011

Prosthetics &Amp; Orthotics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) covers all aspects and levels of human functioning. Objectives: The aim of the study was to find out whether the ICF can be used in everyday prosthetics and orthotics (P&O) clinical practice for description of human functioning, and whether it can demonstrate the influence of a prosthesis or an orthosis on a person's functioning. Study Design: Prospective clinical study. Methods: A short list of ICF codes was compiled from Annex 9 and used for one month for all patients seen at the author's P&O outpatient clinics. Results: One hundred patients (59 men, average age 58 years) with different medical problems were included in the study. From 6 to 27 (14 on average) ICF categories from all four components of ICF were used in these patients. The most frequently used category for body functions was mobility of joint functions, for body structures it was structure of the skin and for activities and participation it was walking. Public and private buildings were the only barriers identified. Conclusions: It can be concluded that the ICF can be used in everyday P&O clinical practice. An ICF list of categories provides quick additional information. To be able to demonstrate the influence of P&O devices on person's functioning, at least for activities and participation, one has to use qualifiers. Clinical relevanceFor clinicians it is important to know that it is possible to use the ICF in clinical practice and that it can demonstrate the impact of P&O devices on a person's functioning.

show abstract

Upper Limb Prosthetic Outcome Measures

Cited by 80 publications

References 54 publications

Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures

Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures

Test-retest reliability and rater agreements of Assessment of Capacity for Myoelectric Control version 2.0

Can the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) be used in a prosthetics and orthotics outpatient clinic?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About