{"title":"Accuracy and Reliability of Remote Categorization of Upper Limb Outcome After Stroke.","authors":"Harry T Jordan, Cathy M Stinear","doi":"10.1177/15459683241231272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is an increasing need for motor assessments after stroke that can be performed quickly and remotely. The Fast Outcome Categorization of the Upper Limb after Stroke-4 (FOCUS-4) assessment remotely classifies upper limb outcome into 1 of 4 categories after stroke and was developed via retrospective analysis of Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) scores.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy and reliability of FOCUS-4 assessments for categorizing upper limb outcome after stroke when administered remotely during a videocall compared to an in-person ARAT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected from 26 participants at 3 months post-stroke (3M), 27 participants at 6 months post-stroke (6M), and 56 participants at the chronic stage of stroke (>6M). Participants performed an in-person ARAT and a remote FOCUS-4 assessment administered during a videocall, and accuracy was evaluated by comparing the upper limb outcome categories. Participants at the chronic stage of stroke also performed a second remote FOCUS-4 assessment to assess between-day reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall accuracy of the remote FOCUS-4 assessment was 88% at 3M and 96% at 6M. Overall accuracy of the first and second remote FOCUS-4 assessments at the chronic stage was 75% and 79%, respectively. Reliability of the FOCUS-4 assessment at the chronic stage was 82%. The remote FOCUS-4 assessment was most accurate and reliable for participants with mild or severe upper limb functional impairment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The remote FOCUS-4 assessment has potential to classify upper limb functional capacity or to screen possible participants for stroke trials, but external validation is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":94158,"journal":{"name":"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair","volume":" ","pages":"167-175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10943605/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683241231272","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: There is an increasing need for motor assessments after stroke that can be performed quickly and remotely. The Fast Outcome Categorization of the Upper Limb after Stroke-4 (FOCUS-4) assessment remotely classifies upper limb outcome into 1 of 4 categories after stroke and was developed via retrospective analysis of Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) scores.
Objective: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy and reliability of FOCUS-4 assessments for categorizing upper limb outcome after stroke when administered remotely during a videocall compared to an in-person ARAT.
Methods: Data were collected from 26 participants at 3 months post-stroke (3M), 27 participants at 6 months post-stroke (6M), and 56 participants at the chronic stage of stroke (>6M). Participants performed an in-person ARAT and a remote FOCUS-4 assessment administered during a videocall, and accuracy was evaluated by comparing the upper limb outcome categories. Participants at the chronic stage of stroke also performed a second remote FOCUS-4 assessment to assess between-day reliability.
Results: Overall accuracy of the remote FOCUS-4 assessment was 88% at 3M and 96% at 6M. Overall accuracy of the first and second remote FOCUS-4 assessments at the chronic stage was 75% and 79%, respectively. Reliability of the FOCUS-4 assessment at the chronic stage was 82%. The remote FOCUS-4 assessment was most accurate and reliable for participants with mild or severe upper limb functional impairment.
Conclusions: The remote FOCUS-4 assessment has potential to classify upper limb functional capacity or to screen possible participants for stroke trials, but external validation is required.