Technology-assisted assessment of spasticity: a systematic review.
Xinliang Guo, Rebecca Wallace, Ying Tan and 3 others
PMID 36494721WHAT IT FOUND
No technology-assisted spasticity measure is fully validated for clinical use yet.
However, manual stretching with EMG shows promise as a quick, low-cost alternative to the Modified Ashworth Scale.
Key findings
01Most existing technology-assisted methods lack systematic evaluation of their psychometric properties.
02Measuring muscle activity during manual stretching appears to be the most practical alternative to clinical scales.
03More than half of the identified studies proposed methods that did not fully account for the velocity-dependent nature of spasticity.
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 review did not analyze methods separately for each joint or pathology, which may affect how practical a method is for specific body parts or conditions. Usability metrics like cost and time were estimates based on descriptions, not direct measurements. The inclusion of conference proceedings may have introduced bias, as some studies might not have fully validated their methods at the time of publication. Many studies did not report key psychometric properties, making it difficult to compare methods comprehensively.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that technology-assisted measures are superior to clinical scales just because they are more precise. The review found that most methods lack full validation, and many fail to correctly identify the velocity-dependent component of spasticity, meaning they may be measuring general stiffness rather than true spasticity.