Measurement Of Spasticity Among Patients Post Stroke Using Non-Instrumental Clinical Measures: A Systematic Review.

I have attached an instructions document.


General Notes:
1. I have attached 5 documents to this order, which I refer to them below, these documents are: (i) Methods, (ii) Summary of studies, (iii) Rating of studies, (iv) Validity, and (v) Reliability. Below are specific instruction on how I would like them to be used
2. This systematic review includes 27 papers, which I have included in this order as one single PDF file named (all studies)
3. This paper is intended to be a similar systematic review to the one by Flamand et al. (attached)
4. I have also attached three systematic reviews to provide further references: (i) Platz et al., (ii) Pandyan et al., and (iii) Haugh et al.

Instructions for writing this paper:

Introduction: The introduction should not exceed 3 pages and include aspects of spasticity and how it is measured, a look into previous studies that tried to measure spasticity and previous systematic reviews about the measurement of spasticity. Finally, the introduction ends by indicating the lack of a systematic review of this king and stating the purpose of the review, which was �to conduct a systematic review using critical appraisal scales to analyze both the quality and content of the psychometric evidences of non-instrumental spasticity measurement tools among patients suffering from stroke�.

Methods: The Methods section has been attached as a separate document. Please add that section to the body of the final document as well as the figure included in Methods document.

Results: In the results section, the number of studies included in the review should be expressed (27) and also the summary of studies table (attached) and the rating of studies (attached) should be included in this section. Also, the measures found in the systematic review should be presented (9). Following this, each measure should be examined in terms of:
1- General quality as a measurement tool:
a- Reliability, validity and sensitivity using results of review
2- Practical quality:
a- Use of measurement tool in clinical or research settings
b- Ease of use and Training requirement
c- Easily interpreted results
d- Application to all body parts
3- Quality specific to measurement of spasticity
a- Directly related to the measurement of spasticity (Lance, 1980)
b- Correlation with other scales
c- Differentiates between neural and non-neural components of spasticity
In this review, the non-instrumental measures found were:
a) Ashworth Scale (AS)
b) Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)
c) Modified-Modified Ashworth Scale (MMAS)
d) Tardieu Scale (TS)
e) Modified Tardieu Scale (MTS)
f) Ankle planter flexors tone Scale (APTS)
g) Tone Assessment Scale (TAS)
h) Clinical categorization of tone (spastic, normal or flaccid) and use of visual analogue scale (VAS) to measure tone
i) Hypertonus Measure

During the presentation of results, the validity table (attached) and reliability table (attached) should be presented in the results section.

Discussion: In this section the results of the systematic review are discussed in detail and also related to previous systematic review and studies related to the topic

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.