Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology | UNKNOWN |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This is cross-sectional study. By comparing kinematic analysis between stroke and healthy subjects in various directions, this investigation analyzes the compensatory kinematic movement for reaching task in stroke survivors
After Institutional Review Board approval, It recruits 2 groups. one group is elderly and another group is stroke survivors. the stroke group that meets the criteria. Another group is age matching of the stroke and not having an orthopedic or neurological disease. Participants of all the groups are assessed for kinematic by motion capture During reaching arm(affected side; stroke group, non-dominant side; healthy group) in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees). Retroreflective markers are placed on 11 anatomical place (3th metacarpal joint, both acromion, elbow lateral and medial epicondyle, lateral and medial styloid process, xyphoid process, sternum, C7, T4). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible in three directions. The subject reach to a bell 5 times in each direction and assess clinical evaluation such as Fugl Meyer Assessment, Postural Assessment Scale, Modified Ashworth Scale, shoulder-elbow range of motion and Trunk Instability scale.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| chronic stroke | The subject consisted of the physician's confirmation of chronic hemiplegia onset ≥ 6 months Mini-mental state examination≥25 Biceps ≤2, Triceps≤2 Ability to Sit on a chair alone FMA upper extremity score ≥ 21points, FMA upper extremity score ≤ 66 points The symptom is mild or moderate level (MAS≤2) and can sit alone. The subject reaches to target by affected arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees) | ||
| Healthy | Matching aged people, not having neurological system or orthopedic disease on Upper extremity. The subject reaches to target by non-dominant arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees) |
Not provided
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Differences in Spatial Measurements of Trunk Dislocation Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | Trunk dislocation (reaching phase in millimetre; mm) in reaching task. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | 1 time (Baseline) |
| Differences in Spatial Measurements of Elbow and Shoulder Angle Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | Elbow extension and shoulder flexion angle (degree) in reaching task. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | 1 time (Baseline) |
| Differences in Temporal Measurements of Movement Unit Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | Movement units are quantified by counting velocity peaks during the reaching task. A movement unit is defined as a velocity profile segment between a local minimum and the following maximum velocity that exceeds 20 mm/s, with a minimum time interval of 150 ms between subsequent peaks. This measure represents the smoothness of movement, where fewer movement units indicate smoother motion The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | 1 time (Baseline) |
| Differences in Temporal Measurements of Hand Movement Time Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | The period from hand tangential velocity movement onset to offset was the total time (entire time of reach and return phase [second]). The period when the tangential velocity exceeded 10% of its peak was termed hand movement onset, whereas that when the tangential velocity stayed below 10% of its peak was termed hand movement offset. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison of Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scores Between Chronic Stroke Patients and Healthy | Related Fugl-Meyer Assessment score(dependent) to predictors(independent) in three directions. In sitting position, the sum of each subtotal score is 66 (maximum) and the minimum is 0. Subscales were summed to compute a total score. Cutoff scores defined 0~20: severe, 21 ~ 50: moderate, 51~66: mild 1) Reflex activity_max 4 score, 2) Volitional movement within synergies_ max 18, 3) Volitional movement mixing synergies_ max 6, 4) Volitional movement with little or no synergy_ max 6, 5) Normal reflex activity_max 2, 6) Wrist movement_ max 10, 7) Hand movement with grasp_ max 14, 8) coordination/speed_max 6. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Comparison of Modified Ashworth Scale Between Chronic Stroke Patients and Healthy Controls | Scoring for Biceps
|
Inclusion Criteria:
The inclusion criteria used in the randomized controlled trials were as follows:
Stroke
Healthy
Exclusion Criteria:
Stroke
Not provided
Not provided
Recruit research participants from the healthy group of 61 participants at the gym for the disabled of Ulsan city and Ulsan national institute of science and technology. Another group of 35 patients who enter the largest gym for the disabled of Ulsan city.
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jóse Casaña Granell, PhD | University of Valencia | Principal Investigator |
| Joaquin Calatayud Villalba, PhD | University of Valencia | Principal Investigator |
| Sang Hoon Kang, PhD | Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology | Ulsan | Ulju | 44919 | South Korea |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29658937 | Background | Alt Murphy M, Murphy S, Persson HC, Bergstrom UB, Sunnerhagen KS. Kinematic Analysis Using 3D Motion Capture of Drinking Task in People With and Without Upper-extremity Impairments. J Vis Exp. 2018 Mar 28;(133):57228. doi: 10.3791/57228. | |
| 24481598 | Background | Wu CY, Liing RJ, Chen HC, Chen CL, Lin KC. Arm and trunk movement kinematics during seated reaching within and beyond arm's length in people with stroke: a validity study. Phys Ther. 2014 Jun;94(6):845-56. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130101. Epub 2014 Jan 30. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
All of the subjects of 96 enrolled participants were inclusion criteria
Participants were recruited based on physician's confirmation of chronic hemiplegia with ≥ 6 months onset and the healthy group consisted of individuals without any history of neurological or orthopedic diseases. The participants was enrolled from August, 2022 to June, 2023 at the gym for the disabled of Ulsan city and Ulsan national institute of science and technology
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Chronic Stroke | The subject consisted of the physician's confirmation of chronic hemiplegia onset ≥ 6 months Mini-mental state examination≥25 Biceps ≤2, Triceps≤2 Ability to Sit on a chair alone FMA upper extremity score ≥ 21points, FMA upper extremity score ≤ 66 points The symptom is mild or moderate level (MAS≤2) and can sit alone. The subject reaches to target by affected arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees) |
| FG001 | Healthy | Matching aged people, not having neurological system or orthopedic disease on Upper extremity. The subject reaches to target by non-dominant arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees) |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
To determine the sample size, the G*Power software was utilized, incorporating an effect size (d) of 1.9, alpha level of 0.05, and power of 0.8. A sample size of six individuals per group was considered sufficient to achieve adequate statistical power, which are α ≤ 0.05, power = 0.8, and β = 0.2. Consequently, a suitable number of participants were recruited, considering a comparison of 35 individuals in the stroke group and 61 individuals in the healthy group.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Chronic Stroke | The subject consisted of the physician's confirmation of chronic hemiplegia onset ≥ 6 months Mini-mental state examination≥25 Biceps ≤2, Triceps≤2 Ability to Sit on a chair alone FMA upper extremity score ≥ 21points, FMA upper extremity score ≤ 66 points The symptom is mild or moderate level (MAS≤2) and can sit alone. The subject reaches to target by affected arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees) |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | Count of Participants |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Differences in Spatial Measurements of Trunk Dislocation Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | Trunk dislocation (reaching phase in millimetre; mm) in reaching task. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | millimeter | 1 time (Baseline) |
|
Not provided
It involved observation at a specific point in time without any intervention. All-Cause Mortality, Serious, and Other (Not Including Serious) Adverse Events were not monitored/assessed.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Chronic Stroke | The subject consisted of the physician's confirmation of chronic hemiplegia onset ≥ 6 months Mini-mental state examination≥25 Biceps ≤2, Triceps≤2 Ability to Sit on a chair alone FMA upper extremity score ≥ 21points, FMA upper extremity score ≤ 66 points The symptom is mild or moderate level (MAS≤2) and can sit alone. The subject reaches to target by affected arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees) |
Not provided
Not provided
the absence of randomization increased the risk of confounding bias.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PI. Jose Casaña Granell | Department of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia | +34 656-437-371 | jose.casana@uv.es |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot | Yes | No | No | Study Protocol | Jul 19, 2022 | Feb 2, 2025 | Prot_000.pdf |
| SAP | No | Yes | No | Statistical Analysis Plan | Jul 19, 2022 | Feb 2, 2025 | SAP_001.pdf |
| ICF | No | No | Yes | Informed Consent Form | Jul 19, 2022 | Feb 2, 2025 | ICF_002.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D020521 | Stroke |
| D006429 | Hemiplegia |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D002561 | Cerebrovascular Disorders |
| D001927 | Brain Diseases |
| D002493 | Central Nervous System Diseases |
| D009422 | Nervous System Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| 1 time (Baseline) |
| Differences in Temporal Measurements of Hand Velocity Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | Tangential velocity was computed for the hand marker's velocity. Peak elbow angular velocity (rad/s) during elbow extension were measured The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | 1 time (Baseline) |
| Differences in Temporal Measurements of Elbow Extension Acceleration Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | Acceleration (rad/s2) during elbow extension was measured The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | 1 time (Baseline) |
| Difference of the Components Temporal Measurements Between Healthy and Stroke | Tangential velocity was computed for the hand marker's velocity. The period when the tangential velocity exceeded 10% of its peak was termed hand movement onset, whereas that when the tangential velocity stayed below 10% of its peak was termed hand movement offset. Peak hand velocity (mm/s) was analyzed. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | 1 time (Baseline) |
| Baseline |
| Baseline |
| Range of motion_Health Status Chronic Stroke | Shoulder and elbow joint range of motion
| Baseline |
| Trunk Impairment Scale(TIS)_Health Status Chronic Stroke | The Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) for stroke has a total score of 23 points, with higher scores indicating better trunk control ability. TIS components: Static sitting balance - 7 points Dynamic sitting balance - 10 points Coordination - 6 points 23 points = Optimal trunk control ability (normal performance of all items) 0 points = Minimal trunk control ability (unable to perform) Static sitting balance Dynamic sitting balance Co-ordination | 1 time(Baseline) |
| Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke(PASS)_Health Status Chronic Stroke | The Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke (PASS) evaluates postural control in stroke patients, with scores ranging from 0-36 points, where higher scores indicate better functional recovery. 1) Sitting without support 2,3) Standing with(without) support 4,5) Standing on (non)paretic leg 6) Supine to affected side lateral 7) Supine to non-affected side lateral 8) Supine to sitting up on the edge of the table 9) Sitting on the edge of the table to supine 10) Sitting to standing up 11) Standing up to sitting down 12) Standing, picking up a pencil from the floor | Baseline |
| Fugl_Meyer Assessment(FMA)_Health Status Chronic Stroke | Upper extremity The total score means that severe <20, 20=\ | Baseline |
| Modified Ashworth Scale_Stiffness of Chronic Stroke | Scoring for Triceps
| Baseline |
| 30925379 | Background | Machado LR, Heathcock J, Carvalho RP, Pereira ND, Tudella E. Kinematic characteristics of arm and trunk when drinking from a glass in children with and without cerebral palsy. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2019 Mar;63:201-206. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.03.011. Epub 2019 Mar 19. |
| 23181596 | Background | Lobo-Prat J, Font-Llagunes JM, Gomez-Perez C, Medina-Casanovas J, Angulo-Barroso RM. New biomechanical model for clinical evaluation of the upper extremity motion in subjects with neurological disorders: an application case. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2014 Aug;17(10):1144-56. doi: 10.1080/10255842.2012.738199. Epub 2012 Nov 27. |
| 27000446 | Background | Hsieh YW, Liing RJ, Lin KC, Wu CY, Liou TH, Lin JC, Hung JW. Sequencing bilateral robot-assisted arm therapy and constraint-induced therapy improves reach to press and trunk kinematics in patients with stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Mar 22;13:31. doi: 10.1186/s12984-016-0138-5. |
| 10775539 | Background | Cirstea MC, Levin MF. Compensatory strategies for reaching in stroke. Brain. 2000 May;123 ( Pt 5):940-53. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.5.940. |
| 11880893 | Background | Levin MF, Michaelsen SM, Cirstea CM, Roby-Brami A. Use of the trunk for reaching targets placed within and beyond the reach in adult hemiparesis. Exp Brain Res. 2002 Mar;143(2):171-80. doi: 10.1007/s00221-001-0976-6. Epub 2002 Jan 8. |
| 11460767 | Background | Adamovich SV, Archambault PS, Ghafouri M, Levin MF, Poizner H, Feldman AG. Hand trajectory invariance in reaching movements involving the trunk. Exp Brain Res. 2001 Jun;138(3):288-303. doi: 10.1007/s002210100694. |
| 9099186 | Background | Dean CM, Shepherd RB. Task-related training improves performance of seated reaching tasks after stroke. A randomized controlled trial. Stroke. 1997 Apr;28(4):722-8. doi: 10.1161/01.str.28.4.722. |
| 10502647 | Background | Dean C, Shepherd R, Adams R. Sitting balance I: trunk-arm coordination and the contribution of the lower limbs during self-paced reaching in sitting. Gait Posture. 1999 Oct;10(2):135-46. doi: 10.1016/s0966-6362(99)00026-0. |
| 32539738 | Background | Thrane G, Sunnerhagen KS, Murphy MA. Upper limb kinematics during the first year after stroke: the stroke arm longitudinal study at the University of Gothenburg (SALGOT). J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Jun 15;17(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00705-2. |
| 12819841 | Background | Cirstea MC, Mitnitski AB, Feldman AG, Levin MF. Interjoint coordination dynamics during reaching in stroke. Exp Brain Res. 2003 Aug;151(3):289-300. doi: 10.1007/s00221-003-1438-0. Epub 2003 Jun 19. |
| 33585418 | Background | Schwarz A, Veerbeek JM, Held JPO, Buurke JH, Luft AR. Measures of Interjoint Coordination Post-stroke Across Different Upper Limb Movement Tasks. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021 Jan 28;8:620805. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.620805. eCollection 2020. |
| BG001 | Healthy | Matching aged people, not having neurological system or orthopedic disease on Upper extremity. The subject reaches to target by non-dominant arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees) |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Participants |
|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) | Inclusion criteria: FMA upper extremity score ≥ 21 points (In sitting position, the sum of each subtotal score is 66 (maximum) and the minimum is 0. Subscales were summed to compute a total score Cutoff scores defined 21 ~ 50: moderate, 51~66: mild 1) Reflex activity_max 4 score, 2) Volitional movement within synergies_ max 18, 3) Volitional movement mixing synergies_ max 6, 4) Volitional movement with little or no synergy_ max 6, 5) Normal reflex activity_max 2, 6) Wrist movement_ max 10, 7) Hand movement with grasp_ max 14, 8) coordination/speed_max 6. | Median | Inter-Quartile Range | units on a scale |
|
| OG001 | Healthy | Matching aged people, not having neurological system or orthopedic disease on Upper extremity. The subject reaches to target by non-dominant arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Differences in Spatial Measurements of Elbow and Shoulder Angle Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | Elbow extension and shoulder flexion angle (degree) in reaching task. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Degree | 1 time (Baseline) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Differences in Temporal Measurements of Movement Unit Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | Movement units are quantified by counting velocity peaks during the reaching task. A movement unit is defined as a velocity profile segment between a local minimum and the following maximum velocity that exceeds 20 mm/s, with a minimum time interval of 150 ms between subsequent peaks. This measure represents the smoothness of movement, where fewer movement units indicate smoother motion The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | number of peaks | 1 time (Baseline) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Differences in Temporal Measurements of Hand Movement Time Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | The period from hand tangential velocity movement onset to offset was the total time (entire time of reach and return phase [second]). The period when the tangential velocity exceeded 10% of its peak was termed hand movement onset, whereas that when the tangential velocity stayed below 10% of its peak was termed hand movement offset. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | second | 1 time (Baseline) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Differences in Temporal Measurements of Hand Velocity Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | Tangential velocity was computed for the hand marker's velocity. Peak elbow angular velocity (rad/s) during elbow extension were measured The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | rad/s | 1 time (Baseline) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Differences in Temporal Measurements of Elbow Extension Acceleration Components During 3-directional Bell-reaching Task Between Healthy Subjects and Stroke Patients | Acceleration (rad/s2) during elbow extension was measured The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | rad/s2 | 1 time (Baseline) |
|
|
|
| Primary | Difference of the Components Temporal Measurements Between Healthy and Stroke | Tangential velocity was computed for the hand marker's velocity. The period when the tangential velocity exceeded 10% of its peak was termed hand movement onset, whereas that when the tangential velocity stayed below 10% of its peak was termed hand movement offset. Peak hand velocity (mm/s) was analyzed. The measurements are detected in 3 directions (Forward_90, Lateral_135, Medial_45 degree). Participants reach to a bell as quickly as possible. 3rd joint is calculated for quantitative measurements. | The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | mm/s | 1 time (Baseline) |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Comparison of Fugl-Meyer Assessment Scores Between Chronic Stroke Patients and Healthy | Related Fugl-Meyer Assessment score(dependent) to predictors(independent) in three directions. In sitting position, the sum of each subtotal score is 66 (maximum) and the minimum is 0. Subscales were summed to compute a total score. Cutoff scores defined 0~20: severe, 21 ~ 50: moderate, 51~66: mild 1) Reflex activity_max 4 score, 2) Volitional movement within synergies_ max 18, 3) Volitional movement mixing synergies_ max 6, 4) Volitional movement with little or no synergy_ max 6, 5) Normal reflex activity_max 2, 6) Wrist movement_ max 10, 7) Hand movement with grasp_ max 14, 8) coordination/speed_max 6. | The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Median | Inter-Quartile Range | score on a scale | Baseline |
|
|
|
| Other Pre-specified | Comparison of Modified Ashworth Scale Between Chronic Stroke Patients and Healthy Controls | Scoring for Biceps
| The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Median | Inter-Quartile Range | score on a scale | Baseline |
|
|
|
| Other Pre-specified | Range of motion_Health Status Chronic Stroke | Shoulder and elbow joint range of motion
| The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | degree | Baseline |
|
|
|
| Other Pre-specified | Trunk Impairment Scale(TIS)_Health Status Chronic Stroke | The Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) for stroke has a total score of 23 points, with higher scores indicating better trunk control ability. TIS components: Static sitting balance - 7 points Dynamic sitting balance - 10 points Coordination - 6 points 23 points = Optimal trunk control ability (normal performance of all items) 0 points = Minimal trunk control ability (unable to perform) Static sitting balance Dynamic sitting balance Co-ordination | The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Median | Inter-Quartile Range | score on a scale | 1 time(Baseline) |
|
|
|
| Other Pre-specified | Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke(PASS)_Health Status Chronic Stroke | The Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke (PASS) evaluates postural control in stroke patients, with scores ranging from 0-36 points, where higher scores indicate better functional recovery. 1) Sitting without support 2,3) Standing with(without) support 4,5) Standing on (non)paretic leg 6) Supine to affected side lateral 7) Supine to non-affected side lateral 8) Supine to sitting up on the edge of the table 9) Sitting on the edge of the table to supine 10) Sitting to standing up 11) Standing up to sitting down 12) Standing, picking up a pencil from the floor | The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Median | Inter-Quartile Range | score on a scale | Baseline |
|
|
|
| Other Pre-specified | Fugl_Meyer Assessment(FMA)_Health Status Chronic Stroke | Upper extremity The total score means that severe <20, 20=\ | Not Posted | Baseline | Participants |
| Other Pre-specified | Modified Ashworth Scale_Stiffness of Chronic Stroke | Scoring for Triceps
| The population analyzed enrolled all participants with inclusion criteria between chronic stroke and healthy | Posted | Median | Inter-Quartile Range | units on a scale | Baseline |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| EG001 | Healthy | Matching aged people, not having neurological system or orthopedic disease on Upper extremity. The subject reaches to target by non-dominant arm in 3 directions(medial_45, forward_90 and lateral_135 degrees) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Not provided
Not provided
| D014652 | Vascular Diseases |
| D002318 | Cardiovascular Diseases |
| D010243 | Paralysis |
| D009461 | Neurologic Manifestations |
| D012816 | Signs and Symptoms |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
| Elbow extension_Medial |
|
| Shoulder flexion_Forward |
|
| Shoulder flexion_Lateral |
|
| Shoulder flexion_Medial |
|
| Movement unit_Medial |
|
| Total time_Medial |
|
| Elbow angular velocity_Medial |
|
| Elbow angular acceleration_Medial |
|
| Hand velocity_Medial |
|
| Shoulder adduction |
|
| Shoulder external rotation |
|
| Shoulder internal rotation |
|
| Elbow flexion |
|
| Elbow extension |
|