Objective: To examine the clinimetric characteristics of the Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS). This newly developed scale evaluates motor impairment of the trunk after stroke. The TIS scores, on a range from 0 to 23, static and dynamic sitting balance as well as trunk co-ordination. It also aims to score the quality of trunk movement and to be a guide for treatment. Design: Two physiotherapists observed each patient simultaneously, but scored independently. Each patient was re-examined by one of the therapists. Subjects: Twenty-eight patients in a rehabilitation setting. Results: Kappa and weighted kappa values for item per item reliability ranged for all but two, from 0.62 to 1. All percentages of agreement exceeded 81%. Intraclass correlations (ICC) for the summed scores of the different subscales were between 0.85 and 0.99. Test–retest and interobserver reliability for the TIS total score (ICC) was 0.96 and 0.99, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement for the test–retest and interexaminer measurement error were -2.90, 3.68 and -1.84, 1.84, respectively. Cronbach alpha coefficients for internal consistency ranged from 0.65 to 0.89. Content validity was defined. Spearman rank correlations with the Barthel Index (r5=0.86) and the Trunk Control Test (r5=0.83) was used to examine construct and concurrent validity, respectively. Conclusions: Analysis of different clinimetric parameters support the use of the TIS in both clinical use and future stroke research. Guidelines for treatment and level of quality of trunk activity can be derived from the assessment.

Objective: To evaluate trunk performance in non-acute and chronic stroke patients by means of the Trunk Control Test and Trunk Impairment Scale and to compare the Trunk Control Test with the Trunk Impairment Scale and its subscales in relation to balance, gait and functional ability after stroke. Subjects: Fifty-one stroke patients, attending a rehabilitation programme, participated in the study. Main measures: Subjects were evaluated with the Trunk Control Test, Trunk Impairment Scale, Tinetti balance and gait subscales, Functional Ambulation Category, 10-m walk test, Timed Up and Go Test and motor part of the Functional Independence Measure. Results: Participants obtained a median score of 61 out of 100 on the Trunk Control Test and 11 out of 23 for the Trunk Impairment Scale. Twelve participants (24%) obtained the maximum score on the Trunk Control Test; no subject reached the maximum score on the Trunk Impairment Scale. Measures of trunk performance were significantly related with values of balance, gait and functional ability. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed an additional, significant contribution of the dynamic sitting balance subscale of the Trunk Impairment Scale in addition to the Trunk Control Test total score for measures of gait and functional ability (model R² = 0.55-0.62). Conclusions: This study clearly indicates that trunk performance is still impaired in non-acute and chronic stroke patients. When planning future follow-up studies, use of the Trunk Impairment Scale has the advantage that it has no ceiling effect.

Purpose: To propose a consensus-based definition and framework for motor rehabilitation after stroke. Methods: An expert European working group reviewed the literature, attaining internal consensus after external feedback. Findings: Motor rehabilitation is defined as a process that engages people with stroke to benefit their motor function, activity capacity and performance in daily life. It is necessary for people with residual motor disability whose goal is to enhance their functioning, independence and participation. Motor rehabilitation operates through learning- and use-dependent mechanisms. The trajectory of motor recovery varies across patients and stages of recovery. Early behavioral restitution of motor function depends on spontaneous biological mechanisms. Further improvements in activities of daily living are achieved by compensations. Motor rehabilitation is guided by regular assessment of motor function and activity using consensus-based measures, including patient-reported outcomes. Results are discussed with the patient and their carers to set personal goals. During motor rehabilitation patients learn to optimize and adapt their motor, sensory and cognitive functioning through appropriately dosed repetitive, goal-oriented, progressive, task- and context-specific training. Motor rehabilitation supports people with stroke to maximize health, well-being and quality of life. The framework describes the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in the context of stroke, describes neurobiological mechanisms of behavioral restitution and compensation, and summarizes recommendations for clinical assessment, prediction tools, and motor interventions with strong recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (2016–2022). Conclusions: This definition and framework may guide clinical educators, inform clinicians on current recommendations and guidelines, and identify gaps in the evidence base.

Background. Patterns of recovery provide useful information concerning the potential of physical recovery over time and therefore the setting of realistic goals for rehabilitation programs. Objective. To compare the time course of trunk recovery with the patterns of recovery of arm, leg, and functional ability. Methods . Consecutive stroke patients were recruited in 2 acute neurology wards. Participants were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 and 6 months after stroke. Patients were assessed with the Trunk Impairment Scale, Fugl-Meyer arm and leg test, and Barthel Index. Results. Thirty-two patients were included in the study. There were no dropouts. Repeated measures analysis of the recovery patterns of motor and functional performance revealed the most striking improvement for all measures from 1 week to 1 month (P value between .0021 and <.0001) and a significant improvement from 1 month to 3 months after stroke (P value ranges from .0008 to <.0001). No significant improvement was found between 3 and 6 months after stroke for any of the measures. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference between time course of trunk, arm, leg, and functional recovery (P = .2565). No significant differences in level of motor and functional recovery were found at the different time points. Conclusions. Separate analyses of motor and functional recovery patterns after stroke confirm the importance of the first month for recovery. Contrary to common belief, the time course of recovery of the trunk is similar to the recovery of arm, leg, and functional ability.

Background: The association between somatosensory impairments and outcome after stroke remains unclear. Purpose: The aim of this study was to systematically review the available literature on the relationship between somatosensory impairments in the upper limb and outcome after stroke. Data Sources: The electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception until July 2013. Study Selection: Studies were included if adult patients with stroke (minimum n=10) were examined with reliable and valid measures of somatosensation in the upper limb to investigate the relationship with upper limb impairment, activity, and participation measures. Exclusion criteria included measures of somatosensation involving an overall score for upper and lower limb outcome and articles including only lower limb outcomes. Data Extraction: Eligibility assessment, data extraction, and quality evaluation were completed by 2 independent reviewers. A cutoff score of ≥65% of the maximal quality score was used for further inclusion in this review. Data Synthesis: Six articles met all inclusion criteria. Two-point discrimination was shown to be predictive for upper limb dexterity, and somatosensory evoked potentials were shown to have predictive value in upper limb motor recovery. Proprioception was significantly correlated with perceived level of physical activity and social isolation and had some predictive value in functional movements of the upper limb. Finally, the combination of light touch and proprioception impairment was shown to be significantly related to upper limb motor recovery as well as handicap situations during activities of daily living. Limitations: Heterogeneity of the included studies warrants caution when interpreting results. Conclusions: Large variation in results was found due to heterogeneity of the studies. However, somatosensory deficits were shown to have an important role in upper limb motor and functional performance after stroke.

Trunk performance is an important predictor of functional outcome after stroke. However, the percentage of explained variance varies considerably between studies. This may be explained by the stroke population examined, the different scales used to assess trunk performance and the time points used to measure outcome. The aim of this multicentre study was to examine the predictive validity of the Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) and its subscales when predicting the Barthel Index score at 6 months after stroke. A total of 102 subjects were recruited in three European rehabilitation centres. Participants were assessed on admission (median time since stroke onset 20 days) and 6 months after stroke. Correlation analysis and forward stepwise multiple regression analysis were used to model outcome. The best predictors of the Barthel Index scores at 6 months after stroke were total TIS score (partial R2 = 0.52, p<.0001) and static sitting balance subscale score (partial R2 = 0.50, p<.0001) on admission. The TIS score on admission and its static sitting balance subscale were stronger predictors of the Barthel Index score at 6 months than the Barthel Index score itself on admission. This study emphasises the importance of trunk performance, especially static sitting balance, when predicting functional outcome after stroke. The TIS is recommended as a prediction instrument in the rehabilitation setting when considering the prognosis of stroke patients. Future studies should address the evolution of trunk performance over time and the evaluation of treatment interventions to improve trunk performance.