The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Standardized Approach to the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and Its Implications for Clinical Trials
Open accessAbstract
Background. Standardizing scoring reduces variability and increases accuracy. A detailed scoring and training method for the Fugl-Meyer motor assessment (FMA) is described and assessed, and implications for clinical trials considered. Methods. A standardized FMA scoring approach and training materials were assembled, including a manual, scoring sheets, and instructional video plus patient videos. Performance of this approach was evaluated for the upper extremity portion. Results. Inter- and intrarater reliability in 31 patients were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.98-0.99), validity was excellent ( r = 0.74-0.93, P < .0001), and minimal detectable change was low (3.2 points). Training required 1.5 hours and significantly reduced error and variance among 50 students, with arm FMA scores deviating from the answer key by 3.8 ± 6.2 points pretraining versus 0.9 ± 4.9 points posttraining. The current approach was implemented without incident into training for a phase II trial. Among 66 patients treated with robotic therapy, change in FMA was smaller ( P ≤ .01) at the high and low ends of baseline FMA scores. Conclusions. Training with the current method improved accuracy, and reduced variance, of FMA scoring; the 20% FMA variance reduction with training would decrease sample size requirements from 137 to 88 in a theoretical trial aiming to detect a 7-point FMA difference. Minimal detectable change was much smaller than FMA minimal clinically important difference. The variation in FMA gains in relation to baseline FMA suggests that future trials consider a sliding outcome approach when FMA is an outcome measure. The current training approach may be useful for assessing motor outcomes in restorative stroke trials.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The post-stroke hemiplegic patient. 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance
Fugl-Meyer, A., Jääskö, L., Leyman, I., Olsson, S., & Steglind, S. (1975) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.2340/1650197771331 · Cited by 5,564
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000062554.74615.4c · Cited by 4,700
Gladstone, D. J., Danells, C. J., & Black, S. E. (2002) · Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair · doi:10.1177/154596802401105171 · Cited by 2,032
Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations
Mathiowetz, V., Weber, K., Volland, G., & Kashman, N. (1984) · The Journal of Hand Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0363-5023(84)80146-x · Cited by 1,857
The Stroke Impact Scale Version 2.0: Evaluation of Reliability, Validity, and Sensitivity to Change
Duncan, P. W., Wallace, D., Lai, S. M., Johnson, D., Embretson, S., & Laster, L. J. (1999) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.30.10.2131 · Cited by 1,180
Clinical assessment Recommendations
Fess, E. E. (1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,174
Lum, P. S., Burgar, C. G., Shor, P. C., Majmundar, M., & Van der Loos, M. (2002) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.33101 · Cited by 1,159
Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery Following Cerebrovascular Accident
Duncan, P. W., Propst, M., & Nelson, S. G. (1983) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/63.10.1606 · Cited by 962
THE RESTORATION OF MOTOR FUNCTION FOLLOWING HEMIPLEGIA IN MAN
TWITCHELL, T. E. (1951) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/74.4.443 · Cited by 940
Chollet, F., Tardy, J., Albucher, J.-F., Thalamas, C., Berard, E., Lamy, C., Bejot, Y., Deltour, S., Jaillard, A., Niclot, P., et al. (2011) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70314-8 · Cited by 925
Cited by
Kwakkel, G., Lannin, N. A., Borschmann, K., English, C., Ali, M., Churilov, L., Saposnik, G., Winstein, C., van Wegen, E. E., Wolf, S. L., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Stroke · doi:10.1177/1747493017711813 · Cited by 586
Dawson, J., Liu, C. Y., Francisco, G. E., Cramer, S. C., Wolf, S. L., Dixit, A., Alexander, J., Ali, R., Brown, B. L., Feng, W., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00475-x · Cited by 518
Self-citationDawson, J., Pierce, D., Dixit, A., Kimberley, T. J., Robertson, M., Tarver, B., Hilmi, O., McLean, J., Forbes, K., Kilgard, M. P., et al. (2016) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.115.010477 · Cited by 300
Self-citationRehabilitation Therapy Doses Are Low After Stroke and Predicted by Clinical Factors
Young, B. M., Holman, E. A., Cramer, S. C., Shah, S., Griessenauer, C. J., Patel, N., Lin, D. J., Gee, J., Moon, J., Schwertfeger, J., et al. (2023) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.122.041098 · Cited by 67
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- See, J., Dodakian, L., Chou, C., Chan, V., McKenzie, A., Reinkensmeyer, D. J., & Cramer, S. C.
- Venue
- Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-06-17
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 732-741
- ISSN
- 0888-4390 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-9683
- 1552-6844
- OpenAlex
- W2099864518
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 57
- FWCI
- 8.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Standardized Approach to the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and Its Implications for Clinical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1545968313491000
- The paper
- See, J., Dodakian, L., Chou, C., Chan, V., McKenzie, A., Reinkensmeyer, D. J., & Cramer, S. C. (2013). A Standardized Approach to the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and Its Implications for Clinical Trials. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968313491000
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
