Sara Kjær Bastholm, Iris Charlotte Brunner, Camilla Biering Lundquist
{"title":"Upper Limb Function 3 Months Post-Stroke: How Accurate Are Physiotherapist Predictions?","authors":"Sara Kjær Bastholm, Iris Charlotte Brunner, Camilla Biering Lundquist","doi":"10.1002/pri.70056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A frequent sequela of stroke is upper limb (UL) impairment. Accurate UL function prognosis is crucial for targeted rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the accuracy of physiotherapists' predictions of UL function and investigate whether prediction accuracy is affected by physiotherapists' seniority within rehabilitation and/or their level of education. Physiotherapist predictions were compared with a prediction algorithm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 81 patients were included. Two weeks post-stroke, physiotherapists predicted UL function based on clinical reasoning. ARAT scores (poor, limited, good, or excellent) at 3 months post-stroke served to determine prediction accuracy. Prediction accuracy was calculated as correct classification rate (CCR). Logistic regression was used to explore the effect of seniority and education. McNemar's test was applied to compare physiotherapist predictions to an algorithm applied 2 weeks post-stroke to the same patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall correct classification rate (CCR) of physiotherapist predictions was 41% (95% CI: 30-51). Predictions were most accurate for the excellent (75%) and poor (71%) categories, but lower for limited (22%) and good (30%). No association was observed between prediction accuracy and physiotherapist seniority or education. There was a tendency, but not a statistically significant superiority, in the prediction accuracy of the algorithm compared to the physiotherapist predictions (Odds ratio 2 [95% CI: 0.96-4.39], McNemar p = 0.0455, exact McNemar p = 0.0652).</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Project number: 628213.</p>","PeriodicalId":47243,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Research International","volume":"30 2","pages":"e70056"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11959449/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.70056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: A frequent sequela of stroke is upper limb (UL) impairment. Accurate UL function prognosis is crucial for targeted rehabilitation.
Objective: To determine the accuracy of physiotherapists' predictions of UL function and investigate whether prediction accuracy is affected by physiotherapists' seniority within rehabilitation and/or their level of education. Physiotherapist predictions were compared with a prediction algorithm.
Methods: Data from 81 patients were included. Two weeks post-stroke, physiotherapists predicted UL function based on clinical reasoning. ARAT scores (poor, limited, good, or excellent) at 3 months post-stroke served to determine prediction accuracy. Prediction accuracy was calculated as correct classification rate (CCR). Logistic regression was used to explore the effect of seniority and education. McNemar's test was applied to compare physiotherapist predictions to an algorithm applied 2 weeks post-stroke to the same patients.
Results: The overall correct classification rate (CCR) of physiotherapist predictions was 41% (95% CI: 30-51). Predictions were most accurate for the excellent (75%) and poor (71%) categories, but lower for limited (22%) and good (30%). No association was observed between prediction accuracy and physiotherapist seniority or education. There was a tendency, but not a statistically significant superiority, in the prediction accuracy of the algorithm compared to the physiotherapist predictions (Odds ratio 2 [95% CI: 0.96-4.39], McNemar p = 0.0455, exact McNemar p = 0.0652).
期刊介绍：
Physiotherapy Research International is an international peer reviewed journal dedicated to the exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to specialist areas of physiotherapy theory, practice, and research. Our aim is to promote a high level of scholarship and build on the current evidence base to inform the advancement of the physiotherapy profession. We publish original research on a wide range of topics e.g. Primary research testing new physiotherapy treatments; methodological research; measurement and outcome research and qualitative research of interest to researchers, clinicians and educators. Further, we aim to publish high quality papers that represent the range of cultures and settings where physiotherapy services are delivered. We attract a wide readership from physiotherapists and others working in diverse clinical and academic settings. We aim to promote an international debate amongst the profession about current best evidence based practice. Papers are directed primarily towards the physiotherapy profession, but can be relevant to a wide range of professional groups. The growth of interdisciplinary research is also key to our aims and scope, and we encourage relevant submissions from other professional groups. The journal actively encourages submissions which utilise a breadth of different methodologies and research designs to facilitate addressing key questions related to the physiotherapy practice. PRI seeks to encourage good quality topical debates on a range of relevant issues and promote critical reflection on decision making and implementation of physiotherapy interventions.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
