Cited by 233Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersMotor Control and Adaptation

Ambulatory Monitoring of Arm Movement Using Accelerometry: An Objective Measure of Upper-Extremity Rehabilitation in Persons With Chronic Stroke

Uswatte, Gitendra, Foo, Wai Leong, Olmstead, Harry, Lopez, Kristine, Holand, Ashleigh, Simms, Leslie Box·2005·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of accelerometry for measuring upper-extremity rehabilitation outcome.Design Validation study.Setting Data recorded in the community.Participants Consecutive Constraint-Induced Movement therapy (CIMT) patients (n = 10) and volunteer community residents with stroke (n = 10). All participants were more than 1 year poststroke and had mild to moderate motor impairment of the more affected arm.Intervention All study participants were asked to wear accelerometers outside the laboratory for 3 days immediately before and after treatment, or for an approximately equivalent no-treatment period (controls).Main outcome measures Participants wore an accelerometer on each arm, the chest, and the more affected leg and completed the Motor Activity Log (MAL), which is a semistructured interview of real-world arm use.Results Test-retest reliability of transformed accelerometer recordings was greater than .86. There was also a large increase in the ratio of transformed more- to less-impaired arm recordings in CIMT therapy patients (d' = 0.9, P < .05), while there was no change for controls. The correlation between this parameter and the MAL was .74 (P < .001).Conclusions Accelerometry provides an objective, real-world index of upper-extremity rehabilitation outcome and has good psychometric properties.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.01.010

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uswatte, G., Foo, W. L., Olmstead, H., Lopez, K., Holand, A., & Simms, L. B.
Affiliations
University of Alabama (US)
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-07
Volume
86
Issue
7
Pages
1498-1501
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2014857359
Cited by
233
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
8.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD 34273, R01HD034273)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
accelerometry, ambulatory monitoring, upper limb rehabilitation, chronic stroke, constraint-induced movement therapy, arm use, Motor Activity Log, test-retest reliability, outcome measure validity, objective outcome measures
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Activities of Daily Living, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Movement, Reproducibility of Results, Case-Control Studies, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Stroke, Upper Extremity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review