Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author
Hughes, Ann-Marie
dc.contributor.author
Barbosa Bouças, Sofia
dc.contributor.author
Burridge, Jane H.
dc.contributor.author
Alt Murphy, Margit
dc.contributor.author
Buurke, Jaap H.
dc.contributor.author
Feys, Peter
dc.contributor.author
Klamroth-Marganska, Verena
dc.contributor.author
Lamers, Ilse
dc.contributor.author
Prange-Lasonder, Gerdienke
dc.contributor.author
Timmermans, Annick
dc.contributor.author
Keller, Thierry
dc.date.accessioned
2018-08-20T15:45:19Z
dc.date.available
2017-06-12T13:19:33Z
dc.date.available
2018-08-20T15:45:19Z
dc.date.issued
2016-09
dc.identifier.issn
1743-0003
dc.identifier.other
10.1186/s12984-016-0192-z
en_US
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/120982
dc.identifier.doi
10.3929/ethz-b-000120982
dc.description.abstract
Background The need for cost-effective neurorehabilitation is driving investment into technologies for patient assessment and treatment. Translation of these technologies into clinical practice is limited by a paucity of evidence for cost-effectiveness. Methodological issues, including lack of agreement on assessment methods, limit the value of meta-analyses of trials. In this paper we report the consensus reached on assessment protocols and outcome measures for evaluation of the upper extremity in neurorehabilitation using technology. The outcomes of this research will be part of the development of European guidelines. Methods A rigorous, systematic and comprehensive modified Delphi study incorporated questions and statements generation, design and piloting of consensus questionnaire and five consensus experts groups consisting of clinicians, clinical researchers, non-clinical researchers, and engineers, all with working experience of neurological assessments or technologies. For data analysis, two major groups were created: i) clinicians (e.g., practicing therapists and medical doctors) and ii) researchers (clinical and non-clinical researchers (e.g. movement scientists, technology developers and engineers). Results Fifteen questions or statements were identified during an initial ideas generation round, following which the questionnaire was designed and piloted. Subsequently, questions and statements went through five consensus rounds over 20 months in four European countries. Two hundred eight participants: 60 clinicians (29 %), 35 clinical researchers (17 %), 77 non-clinical researchers (37 %) and 35 engineers (17 %) contributed. At each round questions and statements were added and others removed. Consensus (≥69 %) was obtained for 22 statements on i) the perceived importance of recommendations; ii) the purpose of measurement; iii) use of a minimum set of measures; iv) minimum number, timing and duration of assessments; v) use of technology-generated assessments and the restriction of clinical assessments to validated outcome measures except in certain circumstances for research. Conclusions Consensus was reached by a large international multidisciplinary expert panel on measures and protocols for assessment of the upper limb in research and clinical practice. Our results will inform the development of best practice for upper extremity assessment using technologies, and the formulation of evidence-based guidelines for the evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation.
en_US
dc.format
application/pdf
en_US
dc.language.iso
en
en_US
dc.publisher
BioMed Central
en_US
dc.rights.uri
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
Assessment
en_US
dc.subject
Evaluation
en_US
dc.subject
Neurology
en_US
dc.subject
Outcome measures
en_US
dc.subject
Rehabilitation technology
en_US
dc.subject
Robotics
en_US
dc.subject
Upper extremity
en_US
dc.title
Evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation using technology: a European Delphi consensus study within the EU COST Action Network on Robotics for Neurorehabilitation
en_US
dc.type
Journal Article
dc.rights.license
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
ethz.journal.title
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
ethz.journal.volume
13
en_US
ethz.journal.abbreviated
J Neuroeng Rehabil
ethz.pages.start
86
en_US
ethz.size
14 p.
en_US
ethz.version.deposit
publishedVersion
en_US
ethz.identifier.wos
ethz.identifier.scopus
ethz.identifier.nebis
005571264
ethz.publication.place
London
en_US
ethz.publication.status
published
en_US
ethz.leitzahl
ETH Zürich::00002 - ETH Zürich::00012 - Lehre und Forschung::00007 - Departemente::02070 - Dep. Gesundheitswiss. und Technologie / Dep. of Health Sciences and Technology::03654 - Riener, Robert / Riener, Robert
en_US
ethz.leitzahl.certified
ETH Zürich::00002 - ETH Zürich::00012 - Lehre und Forschung::00007 - Departemente::02070 - Dep. Gesundheitswiss. und Technologie / Dep. of Health Sciences and Technology::03654 - Riener, Robert / Riener, Robert
ethz.date.deposited
2017-06-12T13:27:27Z
ethz.source
ECIT
ethz.identifier.importid
imp593654bdf281646913
ethz.ecitpid
pub:183065
ethz.eth
yes
en_US
ethz.availability
Open access
en_US
ethz.rosetta.installDate
2017-07-13T10:42:31Z
ethz.rosetta.lastUpdated
2018-12-02T13:10:09Z
ethz.rosetta.exportRequired
true
ethz.rosetta.versionExported
true
ethz.COinS
ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20upper%20extremity%20neurorehabilitation%20using%20technology:%20a%20European%20Delphi%20consensus%20study%20within%20the%20EU%20COST%20Action%20Network&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20NeuroEngineering%20and%20Rehabilitation&rft.date=2016-09&rft.volume=13&rft.spage=86&rft.issn=1743-0003&rft.au=Hughes,%20Ann-Marie&Barbosa%20Bou%C3%A7as,%20Sofia&Burridge,%20Jane%20H.&Alt%20Murphy,%20Margit&Buurke,%20Jaap%20H.&rft.genre=article&
 Search via SFX

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Publication type

Show simple item record