Contenido principal del artículo

Ariel García Alfonso
Héctor Navarro Guerra
Carlos Arencibia Abreus
Introducción: ninguna escala simple, por diseño, es lo suficientemente abarcadora para evaluar de forma integral la función motora de pacientes con enfermedad cerebrovascular (ECV); sin embargo, es posible la selección de una batería de ellas para controlar las distintas etapas del proceso de rehabilitación. El objetivo de este estudio fue identificar los criterios que sirven de referencia para la construcción de un instrumento de evaluación funcional en pacientes con ecv. Materiales y métodos: se realizó una búsqueda bibliográfica en las bases de datos PubMed, Rehabilitation Measures Database, ebsco y Medline, donde se incluyeron escalas de evaluación funcional dirigidas al control de la postura, marcha, equilibrio, tono muscular, miembros superiores e inferiores y actividades de la vida diaria. Resultados: para la construcción de un instrumento de evaluación funcional se identificaron un total de trece criterios de referencia agrupados en: 1) criterios psicométricos y 2) criterios de diseño y aplicación. Utilizando estos criterios, se seleccionaron las escalas: Barthel Index, Action Research Arm Test, Ashworth Scale y 10 Meter Walk Test. Conclusión: las escalas seleccionadas brindan información sobre cuatro aspectos relevantes para la evaluación funcional y la práctica terapéutica: autocuidado, función motora, tono muscular y rendimiento físico, estrechamente relacionados con las principales áreas de trabajo durante el proceso de rehabilitación en pacientes con ECV. Los recursos materiales necesarios para su aplicación son mínimos y el tiempo estimado, a partir de la integración de sus tiempos parciales, no sobrepasa los 30 minutos.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
García Alfonso, A., Navarro Guerra, H., & Arencibia Abreus, C. (2019). Criterios para la construcción de un instrumento de evaluación funcional en pacientes con enfermedad cerebrovascular. Revista Ciencias De La Salud, 17(3), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.8355

Ariel García Alfonso, Universidad de Ciencias de la Cultura Física y el Deporte Manuel Fajardo, La Habana (Cuba).

Universidad de Ciencias de la Cultura Física y el Deporte Manuel Fajardo, La Habana (Cuba).

Héctor Navarro Guerra, Universidad de Ciencias de la Cultura Física y el Deporte Manuel Fajardo, La Habana (Cuba).

Universidad de Ciencias de la Cultura Física y el Deporte Manuel Fajardo, La Habana (Cuba).

Carlos Arencibia Abreus, Universidad de Ciencias de la Cultura Física y el Deporte Manuel Fajardo, La Habana (Cuba).

Universidad de Ciencias de la Cultura Física y el Deporte Manuel Fajardo, La Habana (Cuba).

Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chamberlain AM, Chang AR, Cheng S, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics. 2018 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018;137:e67-492. Doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000558

Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:741-54. Doi: 10.1016/S474-4422(09)70150-4

Hennerici MG, Kern R, Szabo K, Binder J. Stroke. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.

Seitz RJ, Donnan GA. Stroke: pathophysiology, recovery potential, and timelines for recovery and rehabilitation. In: Carey LM, editor. Stroke rehabilitation: insights from neuroscience and imaging. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.

English C, Bowen A, Hébert D, Bernhardt J. Rehabilitation after stroke: evidence, practice, and new directions. In: Hankey GJ, Macleod M, Gorelick PB, Chen C, Caprio FZ, Mattle H, editors. Warlow’s Stroke: practical management. 4th ed. Hoboken, nj: Wiley-Blackwell; 20p. 867-77.

Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:313-9. Doi: 10.1177/1545968308328727

Wolf SL, Winstein CJ. Intensive physical therapeutic approaches to stroke recovery. In: Cramer SC, Nudo RJ, editors. Brain repair after stroke. New York: Cambridge University Press; 20p. 219-31.

World Health Organization. World health statistics 20who Library Cataloguing-inPublication Data; 2014.

Benjamin EJ, Blaha MJ, Chiuve SE, Cushman M, Das SR, Deo R, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics. 2017 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;135:e146-603. Doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000485

Lyden PD, Hantson L. Assessment scales for the evaluation of stroke patients. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 1998;7:113-27.

DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2017.

Harrison JK, McArthur KS, Quinn TJ. Assessment scales in stroke: clinimetric and clinical considerations. Clinical Interventions in Aging. 2013;8:201-11 Doi: 10.2147/CIA.S32405

Baker K, Cano SJ, Playford ED. Outcome measurement in stroke: a scale selection strategy. Stroke. 2011;42:1787-94.

Lees KR, Bath PMW, Schellinger PD, Kerr DM, Fulton R, Hacke W, et al. Contemporary outcome measures in acute stroke research: choice of primary outcome measure. Stroke. 2012;43:1163-70. Doi: 10.1/STROKEAHA.111.641423

Sullivan JE, Crowner BE, Kluding PM, Nichols D, Rose DK, Yoshida R, et al. Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: process and recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association Neurology Section Task Force. Phys Ther. 2013;93:1383-96. Doi: 10.2522/ptj.20120492

Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy. Clinical practice guideline for physical therapy in patients with stroke. Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy, V-12/2014; 2014.

Hantson L, Keyser JD. Neurological scales in the assessment of cerebral infarction. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1994;4:7-14. Doi: 10.1159/000108532

Hantson L, Weerdt WD, Keyser JD, Diener HC, Franke C, Palm R, et al. The European Stroke Scale. Stroke. 1994;25:2215-9. Doi: 10.1161/01.STR.25.11.2215

Haan RD, Horn J, Limburg M, Meulen JVD, Bossuyt P. A comparison of five stroke scales with measures of disability, handicap, and quality of life. Stroke. 1993;24:1178-81.

Huang VS, Krakauer JW. Robotic neurorehabilitation: a computational motor learning perspective. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:5. Doi: 10.1186/743-0003-6-5

Lang CE, Bland MD, Bailey RR, Schaefer SY, Birkenmeier RL. Assessment of upper extremity impairment, function, and activity following stroke: foundations for clinical decision making. J Hand Ther. 2013;26:104-15. Doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2012.06.005

Ashford S, Slade M, Malaprade F, Turner-Stokes L. Evaluation of functional outcome measures for the hemiparetic upper limb: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:787-95.

Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC, Langhorne P, Mead GE, Mehrholz J, et al. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;12(11):CD010820. Doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010820.pub2

Veerbeek JM, Kwakkel G, Van Wegen EEH, Ket JCF, Heymans MW. Early prediction of outcome of activities of daily living after stroke: a systematic review. Stroke. 2011;42:1482-8. Doi: 10.161/STROKEAHA.110.604090

Prieto G, Delgado AR. Fiabilidad y validez. Papeles del Psicólogo. 2010;31:67-74.

Shultz KS, Whitney DJ, Zickar MJ. Measurement theory in action: case studies and exercises. New York: Routledge; 2014.

Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Ellis M, Archer AL, Morgan B, Piacentino A. Assessing Wolf motor function test as outcome measure for research in patients after stroke. Stroke. 2001;32:1635-9.

Van der Lee JH, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The responsiveness of the action research arm test and the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale en chronic stroke patients. J Rehab Med. 2001;33:110-3.

Platz T, Pinkowski C. Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl-Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:404-11. Doi: 10.1191/0269215505cr832oa

Rabadi MH, Rabadi FM. Comparison of the action research arm test and the Fugl-Meyer assessment as measures of upper extremity motor weakness after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:962-6.

Quinn T, Dawson J, Walters M, Lees K. Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. Int J Stroke. 2009;3:200-5.

Sangha H, Lipson D, Foley N, Salter K, Bhogal S, Pohani G, et al. A comparison of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure as outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: patterns of disability scale usage in clinical trials. Int J Rehabil Res. 2005;28:135-9.

Quinn TJ, Langhorne P, Stott DJ. Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application. Stroke. 2011;42:1146-51. Doi: 10.61/STROKEAHA.110.598540

Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. The five item Barthel index. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;71:225-30.

Yozbatiran N, Der-Yeghiaian L, Cramer S. A standardized approach to performing the Action Research Arm Test. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22:78-90. Doi: 10.1177/1545968307305353

Chen HF, Lin KC, Wu CY, Chen CL. Rasch validation and predictive validity of the action research arm test in patients receiving stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(6):1039-45.

Nomikos PA, Spence N, Alshehri MA. Test-retest reliability of physiotherapists using the action research arm test in chronic stroke. J Phys Ther Sci. 2018;30(10):1271-7. Doi: 10.1589/jpts.30.1271

Grattan ES, Velozo CA, Skidmore ER, Page SJ, Woodbury ML. Interpreting Action Research Arm Test assessment scores to plan treatment. otjr (Thorofare N J). 2019;39(1):64-73. Doi: 10.1177/1539449218757740

Murphy MA, Resteghini C, Feys P, Lamers I. An overview of systematic reviews on upper extremity outcome measures after stroke. bmc Neurol. 2015;15:29. Doi: 10.1186/s12883015-0292-6

Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K, English C, Ali M, Churilov L, et al. Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke. 2017;12:451-61. Doi: 10.1177/1747493017711813

Winstein CJ, Stein J, Arena R, Bates B, Cherney LR, Cramer SC, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2016;47:e98-169. Doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000098

Gregson JM, Leathley M, Moore AP, Sharma AK, Smith TL, Watkins CL. Reliability of the Tone Assessment Scale and Modified Ashworth Scale as clinical tools for assessing poststroke spasticity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:1013-6.

Millar JD, Wijck FV, Pollock A, Ali M. Outcome measures in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials: do existing measures capture outcomes that are important to stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians? Clinical Rehabilitation. 2019;33(4):737-49. Doi: 10.1177/0269215518823248

Santisteban L, Térémetz M, Bleton J-P, Baron J-C, Maier MA, Lindberg PG. Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. PLoS one. 2016;11(5):e0154792. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone

Wade DT, Wood VA, Heller A, Maggs J, Hewer RL. Walking after stroke. Measurement and recovery over the first 3 months. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1987;19:25-30.

Kollen B, Kwakkel G, Lindeman E. Hemiplegic gait after stroke: is measurement of maximum speed required? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87:358-63. Doi: 10.1016/j. apmr.2005.11.007

Kosak M, Smith T. Comparison of the 2-, 6-, and 12-minute walk tests in patients with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42:103-8. Doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2003.11.0171

Fulk GD, Echternach JL, Nof L, O’Sullivan S. Clinometric properties of the six-minute walk test in individuals undergoing rehabilitation poststroke. Physiother Theory Pract. 2008;24:195-204. Doi: 10.1080/09593980701588284

Liu J, Drutz C, Kumar R, McVicar L, Weinberger R, Brooks D, et al. Use of the six-minute walk test post stroke: is there a practice effect? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1686-92. Doi: 10.016/j.apmr.2008.02.026

Van Bloemendaal M, Van de Water ATM, Van de Port IGL. Walking tests for stroke survivors: a systematic review of their measurement properties. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:220721. Doi: 10.3109/09638288.2012.680649

Beebe JA, Lang CE. Relationships and responsiveness of six upper extremity function tests during the first six months of recovery after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2009;33:96103. Doi: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e3181a33638

See J, Dodakian L, Chou C, Chan V, McKenzie A, Reinkensmeyer DJ, et al. A standardized approach to the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(8):732-41. Doi: 10.1177/1545968313491000

Detalles del artículo