Cited by 94Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsDysphagia Assessment and Management

The Stroke Upper-Limb Activity Monitor: Its Sensitivity to Measure Hemiplegic Upper-Limb Activity During Daily Life

de Niet, Mark, Bussmann, Johannes B., Ribbers, Gerard M., Stam, Henk J.·2007·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective To test the Stroke Upper-Limb Activity Monitor (Stroke-ULAM), which uses electrogoniometry and accelerometry to measure the amount of upper-limb usage in stroke patients in daily life conditions, for its sensitivity to discriminate between moderately recovered and well-recovered stroke patients and control subjects.Design Cross-sectional study.Setting At home or a rehabilitation center.Participants Seventeen patients with stroke and 5 control subjects.Interventions Not applicable.Main outcome measure Level of usage of upper limb and the percentage of affected upper-limb activity compared with unaffected upper-limb activity (proportion).Results The level of usage of the affected upper limb of stroke patients was lower than that of the nondominant upper limb of control subjects (electrogoniometry, 97.8 degrees+/-92.3 degrees/min vs 286.2 degrees+/-46.5 degrees/min, P<.01; accelerometry 1.0+/-0.5 g/min vs 2.4+/-0.8 g/min, P<.01). Stroke patients had lower proportions than control subjects in both electrogoniometry (22.6%+/-18.0% vs 84.6%+/-9.8%, P<.01) and accelerometry (39.2%+/-21.4% vs 93.3%+/-5.0%, P<.01). Well-recovered stroke patients had significantly higher proportions compared with moderately recovered patients on both electrogoniometry and accelerometry.Conclusions The Stroke-ULAM sensitively measures actual performance, and therefore can be a valuable addition to the mostly capacity-oriented tools currently used to evaluate upper-limb function. Proportion is preferred to the level of usage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.06.005

Cites

27 of 27 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
de Niet, M., Bussmann, J. B., Ribbers, G. M., & Stam, H. J.
Affiliations
Erasmus MC (NL)
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-09
Volume
88
Issue
9
Pages
1121-1126
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052105544
Cited by
94
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
Keywords
stroke, hemiplegia, upper limb activity, activity monitoring, electrogoniometry, accelerometry, upper limb function, activities of daily living, stroke recovery
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Exercise Test, Female, Hand, Hemiplegia, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Quality of Life, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Muscle, Skeletal, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Stroke

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