This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0269215508101747v1 23/7/651    most recent 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 Malhotra, S Articles by Hermens, H Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Malhotra, S Articles by Hermens, H Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Spasticity, an impairment that is poorly defined and poorly measured

¹ School of Health & Rehabilitation and Research Institute for Life Course Studies, University of Keele, UK
² Research Institute for Environment, Physical Sciences & Applied Mathematics, University of Keele, UK
³ Research Institute for Science and Technology in Medicine, University of Keele, UK
⁴ Roessingh Research and Development BV, Enschede, The Netherlands

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: a.d.pandyan{at}shar.keele.ac.uk.

	Abstract

Objective: To explore, following a literature review, whether there is a consistent definition and a unified assessment framework for the term ‘spasticity’. The congruence between the definitions of spasticity and the corresponding methods of measurement were also explored.

Data sources: The search was performed on the electronic databases Web of Science, Science Direct and MEDLINE.

Review methods: A systematic literature search of publications written in English between the years 1980 and 2006 was performed with the following keywords: spasticity and tone. The search was limited to the following keywords: stroke, hemiplegia, upper, hand and arm.

Results: Two hundred and fifty references contributed to this review (190 clinical trials, 46 literature reviews, and 14 case reports). Seventy-eight used the Lance definition; 88 equated spasticity with increased muscle tone; 78 provided no definition; and six others used their own definitions for spasticity. Most papers used a single measure and some used more than one. Forty-seven papers used neurophysiological methods of testing, 228 used biomechanical methods of measurement or assessment, 25 used miscellaneous clinical measures (e.g. spasm frequency scales) and 19 did not explicitly describe a measure.

Conclusion: The term spasticity is inconsistently defined and this inconsistency will need to be resolved. Often, the measures used did not correspond to the clinical features of spasticity that were defined within a paper (i.e. internal validity was compromised). There is need to ensure that this lack of congruence is addressed in future research.

First published on May 26, 2009, doi:10.1177/0269215508101747

Clinical Rehabilitation 2009;23:651.

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2009


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