↓ Skip to main content

A cross sectional study of upper extremity strength ten days after a stroke; relationship between patient-reported and objective measures

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A cross sectional study of upper extremity strength ten days after a stroke; relationship between patient-reported and objective measures
Published in
BMC Neurology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12883-015-0436-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanna C. Persson, Anna Danielsson, Katharina S. Sunnerhagen

Abstract

Reduced upper extremity function early after a stroke is common, and a combination of strength capacity and patient-reported measures contribute to setting realistic goals. The validity of the patient's perception of upper extremity strength in relation to objective strength assessments early after a stroke needs to be clarified. The objective was to investigate the relationship between perceived upper extremity strength and measured hand strength at ten days post-stroke. This study of 99 patients with reduced upper extremity function at 3 days post stroke, were consecutively included from a stroke unit to the Stroke Arm Longitudinal Study at the University of Gothenburg, (the SALGOT-study). The correlations between two questions from the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS 1a and 1b), and a dynamometer measure of hand strength values (percentage of normative values) were investigated. In order to explain differences between the two types of measurements, the accordance between perceived strength in a dichotomized SIS and objective measures was explored. In SIS 1a and 1b, 1-3 points correspond to reduced strength (<80 % or normative strength values). In SIS 1a and 1b, 4-5 points correspond to normal strength (≥80 % of normative strength values). The correlation between the measured strength values and perceived arm strength was rho 0.82 (p = <0.001) and with perceived grip strength rho 0.87 (p = <0.001). Using the dichotomized SIS and the 80 % cut-off correctly classified arm strength in 81 % and grip strength in 84 % of the patients, with a sensitivity of 0.86-0.87, a specificity of 0.62-0.77, positive predicted values of 0.87-0.91 and negative predicated values of 0.64-0.67. The discrepancy between assessed strength capacity and self-perceived strength highlights the importanceof including self-perceived assessments early after stroke, in order to increase knowledge of a patient'sawareness of functioning or lack thereof. Ten days after stroke in patients without severe cognitive disabilities, this study suggests that despite high correlations between measures, an objective assessment of arm and hand strength does not always reflect the patient's perspective. A combination of self-reported and objective strength assessment is requested to enhance in setting of realistic goals early after stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01115348 , May 3, 2010.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 18%
Student > Master 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Researcher 10 12%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 21%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Psychology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,239,245
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,221
of 2,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,183
of 274,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#34
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,923 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.