This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Busse, M. Articles by Tyson, S. F Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Busse, M. Articles by Tyson, S. F Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

How many body locations need to be tested when assessing sensation after stroke? An investigation of redundancy in the Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Performance

Department of Physiotherapy, Cardiff University, Cardiff

Sarah F Tyson

Centre for Rehabilitation and Human Performance Research, University of Salford, Salford, UK, s.tyson{at}salford.ac.uk

Objective: Assessing sensation after stroke is time consuming. This study aimed to identify how many body locations need to be tested to establish whether sensation is `intact', `impaired' or `absent' and to assess validity of that classification.

Design: Participants' sensation was tested in a single assessment session. Agreement between the scores for individual anatomical sites and those for the whole limb was calculated using a weighted kappa and percentage agreement for each modality. High agreement between tests indicated redundancy, suggesting that the number of anatomical sites tested could be reduced. The Kruskal—Wallis test assessed the validity of classification by comparing a range of measures of functional ability in people with intact, impaired and absent sensation.

Setting: Hospital-based stroke care.

Subjects: One hundred and two patients tested 2—4 weeks after stroke.

Main measures: Four proprioceptive and tactile modalities were measured using the Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Performance.

Results: Agreement between the total limb score and individual anatomical sites was substantial to excellent for all modalities and anatomical sites. Agreement was greater than 90% when sensation was intact or absent. The comparison between patients with intact, impaired and absent sensation showed significant differences in functional mobility, independence in the activities of daily living, balance and weakness in people with stroke.

Conclusions: Sensory impairment can be classified as `intact', `impaired' or `absent'. There is a high redundancy between anatomical sites when the patient's sensation is `intact' or `absent' and not all sites need to be tested. Reducing the number of sites tested will improve usability of the Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Performance in day-to-day clinical practice.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 23, No. 1, 91-95 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215508097296


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?