↓ Skip to main content

Correlation of Resting Elbow Angle with Spasticity in Chronic Stroke Survivors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Correlation of Resting Elbow Angle with Spasticity in Chronic Stroke Survivors
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2015.00183
Pubmed ID
Authors

Minal Y. Bhadane, Fan Gao, Gerard E. Francisco, Ping Zhou, Sheng Li

Abstract

To evaluate whether resting joint angle is indicative of severity of spasticity of the elbow flexors in chronic stroke survivors. Seventeen hemiparetic stroke subjects (male: n = 13; female: n = 4; age: 37-89 years; 11 right and 6 left hemiplegia; averaged 54.8 months after stroke, ranging 12-107 months) participated in the study. The number of subjects with modified Ashworth scale score (MAS) = 0, 1, 1+, 2, and 3 was 3, 3, 5, 3, and 3, respectively. In a single experimental session, resting elbow joint angle, MAS, and Tardieu scale score (Tardieu R1) were measured. A customized motorized stretching device was used to stretch elbow flexors at 5, 50, and 100°/s, respectively. Biomechanical responses (peak reflex torque and reflex stiffness) of elbow flexors were quantified. Correlation analyses between clinical and biomechanical assessments were performed. Resting elbow joint angle showed a strong positive correlation with Tardieu R1 (r = 0.77, p < 0.01) and a very strong negative correlation with MAS (r = -0.89, p < 0.01). The resting angle also had strong correlations with biomechanical measures (r = -0.63 to -0.76, p < 0.01). Our study provides experimental evidence for anecdotal observation that the resting elbow joint angle correlates with severity of spasticity in chronic stroke. Resting angle observation for spasticity assessment can and will be an easy, yet a valid way of spasticity estimation in clinical settings, particularly for small muscles or muscles which are not easily measurable by common clinical methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 5 10%
Lecturer 4 8%
Professor 4 8%
Other 14 27%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 19%
Engineering 9 17%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 9 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#17,770,433
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,059
of 11,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,594
of 267,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#42
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.