Correlation between a novel upper limb activity monitor and four other instruments to determine functioning in upper limb complex regional pain syndrome type I.

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.9). 04/2005; 37(2):108-14. DOI: 10.1080/16501970410022093
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the place of a novel Upper Limb Activity Monitor in the field of instruments measuring functioning and health in upper limb complex regional pain syndrome type I, by exploring the correlation between the Upper Limb Activity Monitor and 4 questionnaires.
Subjects (n = 30) were measured at home and correlations were calculated between the Upper Limb Activity Monitor and 4 questionnaires; Sickness Impact Profile, RAND-36 Health Survey, Disabilities of Arm Shoulder Hand Questionnaire and Radboud Skills Questionnaire.
Of the inter-questionnaire correlations 83% were significant, whereas 46% of the correlations between the Upper Limb Activity Monitor and the questionnaires were significant. The number and strength of the correlations between the Upper Limb Activity Monitor and questionnaires was dependent on the degree to which similar aspects of functioning were measured.
The Upper Limb Activity Monitor has some correlation with other instruments related to functioning and health, but generally it does not measure the same areas.

Download full-text


Available from: Fabienne C Schasfoort, Jul 07, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ambulatory accelerometry is a technique that allows objective measurement of aspects of everyday human behavior. The aim of our research has been to develop, validate, and apply this technique, which recently resulted in an upper limb activity monitor (ULAM). The ULAM consists of body-mounted acceleration sensors connected to a waist-worn data recorder and allows valid and objective assessment of activity of both upper limbs during performance of also automatically detected mobility-related activities: lying, sitting, standing, walking, cycling, and general movement. The ULAM can be used to determine (limitations of) upper limb activity and mobility in freely moving subjects with upper limb disorders. This article provides a detailed description of its characteristics, summarizes the results of a feasibility study and four application studies in subjects having upper limb complex regional pain syndrome, discusses the most important practical, technical, and methodological issues that were encountered, and describes current and future research projects related to measuring (limitations of) upper limb activity.
    Behavior Research Methods 09/2006; 38(3):439-46. DOI:10.3758/BF03192798 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the Stroke Upper-Limb Activity Monitor (Stroke-ULAM), which uses electrogoniometry and accelerometry to measure the amount of upper-limb usage in stroke patients in daily life conditions, for its sensitivity to discriminate between moderately recovered and well-recovered stroke patients and control subjects. Cross-sectional study. At home or a rehabilitation center. Seventeen patients with stroke and 5 control subjects. Not applicable. Level of usage of upper limb and the percentage of affected upper-limb activity compared with unaffected upper-limb activity (proportion). The level of usage of the affected upper limb of stroke patients was lower than that of the nondominant upper limb of control subjects (electrogoniometry, 97.8 degrees+/-92.3 degrees/min vs 286.2 degrees+/-46.5 degrees/min, P<.01; accelerometry 1.0+/-0.5 g/min vs 2.4+/-0.8 g/min, P<.01). Stroke patients had lower proportions than control subjects in both electrogoniometry (22.6%+/-18.0% vs 84.6%+/-9.8%, P<.01) and accelerometry (39.2%+/-21.4% vs 93.3%+/-5.0%, P<.01). Well-recovered stroke patients had significantly higher proportions compared with moderately recovered patients on both electrogoniometry and accelerometry. The Stroke-ULAM sensitively measures actual performance, and therefore can be a valuable addition to the mostly capacity-oriented tools currently used to evaluate upper-limb function. Proportion is preferred to the level of usage.
    Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 09/2007; 88(9):1121-6. DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.06.005 · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the current clinical guideline of diagnostic criteria for the complex regional pain syndrome I (CRPS I) is a landmark endeavour to define this complex condition it does not prioritise its most important clinical manifestations. We set out to obtain an expert agreed priority list of diagnostic and follow-up parameters in the diagnosis and management of CRPS I. A two round Delphi survey: We asked international experts to list (first round) and weight (second round) parameters (scale 1-10) they believed to be relevant in diagnosis and follow-up. Median ratings and interquartile ranges (IQR) were calculated. Rates 7 and IQR 3 depicted important and expert agreed parameters. Thirty-two diagnostic and 23 follow-up listings and ratings of 13 experts were available for analysis. In three domains (clinical presentation, further examinations and follow-up) experts agreed on the following parameters, pain (10; 9-10) with its subcategories hyperesthesia (7; 5-8) hyperalgesia (8; 8-8) and allodynia (8; 7-10), signs with oedema (9; 8-10) and colour change (8; 5-8) and mobility with its categories motor change (7; 5-8) and decreased range of motion (8; 8-8). The experts agreed that no further examinations were necessary for diagnosis (10; 8-10). The agreed important follow-up parameter was clinical course (10; 8-10) with its categories decrease in pain (8; 8-9) and hyperalgesia (8; 6-8), decreased oedema (8; 7-10) and improvements in motor function (10; 8-10) and strength (8; 6-9). This expert survey conveys an agreed set of relevant diagnostic parameters of CRPS I and proposes that in follow-up examinations treatment success should be based on restoration of those manifestations.
    European journal of pain (London, England) 01/2008; 12(1):48-52. DOI:10.1016/j.ejpain.2007.02.003 · 3.22 Impact Factor