Evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation using technology: a European Delphi consensus study within the EU COST Action Network on Robotics for Neurorehabilitation.
Ann-Marie Hughes, Sofia Barbosa Bouças, Jane H Burridge and 8 others
PMID 27663356WHAT IT FOUND
European experts agreed on four face-to-face upper-limb assessments per programme, separate from treatment and lasting up to three hours, using technology data plus validated clinical measures.
They did not agree on many specific measures.
Key findings
01Experts agreed that a treatment programme should include at least four face-to-face upper-limb assessments, done separately from treatment and lasting no longer than three hours.
02Experts agreed that technology-generated data should be used, while non-technology clinical measures should be restricted to validated outcome measures except in certain research circumstances.
03The consensus produced 22 agreed statements and 20 statements without agreement, with many failed statements asking for specific measures or assessment times.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The panel was self-selected, so it may not represent all European therapists or researchers. The study reports expert agreement, not patient outcomes, so it does not show that these assessments improve arm function or daily living. Many important details failed consensus, especially which specific measures to use and how much time to spend on each assessment. The consensus threshold was lowered from 75% to 69% by the monitoring group, so some statements were accepted on a less strict agreement standard. The paper reports 208 participants across the Delphi rounds, but it does not make clear how many participants were unique.
Declared interests
The paper states that the work was funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology. No author conflict-of-interest declaration is included in the supplied text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read these statements as proof that technology-based assessment improves patient outcomes. The study reports expert agreement on what to measure, not patient outcomes or treatment effects.