Task-Based Mapping of Compensatory Strategies and Movement Kinematics After Stroke: A Systematic Scoping Review.
Pedro Henrique Sousa de Andrade, Caroline Rodrigues Osawa, Maria Eduarda Salum Aveiro and 4 others
Across transfers, gait, balance, and reaching, the most consistently reported post-stroke compensations were slower movement, reduced joint range, and extra trunk or shoulder involvement.
These appeared mostly in the sagittal plane, in both late subacute and chronic stages.
Key findings
1Across all three task categories, the most consistently reported compensations were longer movement time, reduced joint range of motion, and increased contribution of proximal segments such as the trunk and shoulder.
2Compensatory strategies and kinematic variables were identified predominantly in the sagittal plane: 80% in sit-to-stand/stand-to-sit, 52% in gait, 44% in postural control, and 58% in upper-limb tasks.
3In postural control, weight-bearing asymmetry was the most frequently reported finding, present in both subacute and chronic stages but reported more frequently in the chronic stage.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
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
Methodological quality of included studies was not assessed, and findings were not weighted by quality or effect size. Publication bias cannot be excluded. Motor impairment was not stratified by stroke severity, lesion location, or impairment level, so the distribution of compensatory strategies across tasks may be skewed. Substantial heterogeneity across study designs (cross-sectional, experimental, case-control, cohort) and motion analysis methods (3D motion capture, inertial sensors, 2D video) makes direct comparison difficult. The review is descriptive: frequencies reflect how many studies reported a finding, not its magnitude, effect size, or clinical importance. The review does not establish normative movement patterns or identify which compensations are adaptive versus maladaptive.
Declared interests
Funded by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), Brazil, Grant 14504. Authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the frequency of a reported strategy as evidence of its clinical importance or as a target for correction. The review states explicitly that frequencies reflect how many studies reported a finding, not its magnitude or clinical significance. Some compensations, such as trunk displacement during reaching, may be helping the patient complete the task under the demands of the environment rather than representing a deficit to eliminate.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →