Dataset Information

Upper Limb Dexterity in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: An Important and Underrated Morbidity.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Scales to assess disability in multiple sclerosis (MS) rarely provide reliable data on actual global impairment. Upper limb dysfunction is usually overlooked, which has a negative effect on patient well-being. We sought to analyze associations among upper limb dexterity, lower limb speed, and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score; the difference in upper limb dexterity between patients with EDSS scores less than 5 and 5 or greater; and the associations that upper limb dexterity, lower limb speed, and EDSS score have with health-related quality of life measurements and depression.

Methods

A total of 140 adults with MS were evaluated using the Nine-Hole Peg Test, Timed 25-Foot Walk test, EDSS, Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life (MusiQoL) questionnaire, and Beck Depression Inventory. Thorough descriptive-analytical research was conducted using the Spearman correlation, multiple linear regression, and structural equation modeling.

Results

Upper limb dexterity was more closely related to EDSS score than lower limb speed (r = 0.43 vs 0.29, R ² = 0.38) and was greatest in patients with EDSS scores less than 5 (P < .01). Moreover, upper limb dexterity was negatively associated with EDSS score and the MusiQoL questionnaire (r_S = -0.557 to -0.321, P < .05). The correlation that depression has with upper limb dexterity loss was higher than the one it has with lower limb speed (0.098 vs 0.066, t > 1.96).

Conclusions

Upper limb dexterity is associated with global disability, depression, and health-related quality of life. We advocate for the assessment of upper limb dexterity in patients with MS to adopt a better approach to their functional impairment.

SUBMITTER: Alonso RN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8047681 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionStroke-induced upper limb disabilities can be characterized by both motor impairments and activity limitations, commonly assessed using Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMMA-UE) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), respectively. The relationship between the two assessments during recovery is largely unstudied. Expectedly they diverge over time when recovery of impairment (restitution) plateaus, but compensation-driven improvements still occur. The objective of this study is to evaluate the alignment between FMMA-UE and ARAT in defining upper limb functional recovery categories by ARAT scores. We aimed to establish cut-off scores for both measures from the acute/early subacute, subacute and chronic stages of stroke recovery.MethodsSecondary analysis of four prospective cohort studies (acute/early subacute: n = 133, subacute: n = 113, chronic: n = 92) stages post-stroke. Receiver operating characteristic curves calculated the area under the curve (AUC) to establish optimal FMMA-UE cut-offs based on predefined ARAT thresholds distinguishing five activity levels from no activity to full activity. Weighted kappa was used to determine agreement between the two assessments. We used minimally clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) for comparison.ResultsFMMA-UE and ARAT scores showed no relevant divergence across all recovery stages. Results indicated similar cut-off scores in all recovery stages with variability below MCID and MDC95 levels. Cut-off scores demonstrated robust AUC values from 0.77 to 0.86 at every recovery stage. Only in highly functional patients at the chronic stage, we found a reduced specificity of 0.55. At all other times sensitivity ranged between 0.68 and 0.99 and specificity between 0.71 and 0.99. Weighted kappa at the acute/early subacute, subacute and chronic stages was 0.76, 0.83, and 0.81, respectively.DiscussionOur research shows a strong alignment between FMMA-UE and ARAT cut-off scores throughout stroke recovery, except among the subgroup of highly recovered patients at the chronic stage. Discrepancies in specificity potentially stem from fine motor deficits affecting dexterity outcomes that are not captured by FMMA-UE. Additionally, the high congruence of both measures suggests they are not suited to distinguish between restitution and compensation. Calling for more comprehensive assessment methods to better understand upper limb functionality in rehabilitation.