Upper extremity asymmetry due to nerve injuries or central neurologic conditions: a scoping review.
Sandesh G Bhat, Alexander Y Shin, Kenton R Kaufman
PMID 37940959WHAT IT FOUND
Upper extremity asymmetry is mostly assessed in stroke and cerebral palsy using clinical kinematics and strength tests.
Real-world data collection is increasing but remains limited. Most studies rely on low-level evidence, with few randomized trials or cohort studies.
Key findings
01Stroke and cerebral palsy were the most frequently studied conditions for upper extremity asymmetry, while peripheral nerve injury and schizophrenia were the least studied.
02Kinematics and strength measures were the most common types of tests used to assess asymmetry.
03The majority of reviewed articles provided Level III or IV evidence, indicating a predominance of case-control and poorly designed studies.
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 included only articles published in English or with English translations, potentially missing relevant international studies. The search was limited to publications from 2000 to 2022. Most included studies were of low methodological quality (Level III or IV), limiting the strength of conclusions about specific assessment tools. The review focused on multiple conditions, which may dilute the depth of analysis for any single neurological population. There is a possibility that some relevant articles were missed due to the specific search terms used.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, the W. Hall Wendel, Jr. Fund, and an anonymous benefactor. No specific conflicts of interest were declared by the authors.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this review as endorsing specific tests for clinical use. It maps the existing literature, which is largely composed of low-quality evidence, and does not validate the effectiveness of any single assessment method for predicting patient outcomes.