เครื่องมือประเมินผู้ป่วยโรคหลอดเลือดสมอง
Article Sidebar
เผยแพร่แล้ว:
ธ.ค. 16, 2016
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
การตรวจ ประเมินผู้ป่วยเป็นขั้นตอนที่มีความสำคัญในการรักษา ฟื้นฟูทางกายภาพบำบัดอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพที่จำเพาะกับปัญหาของผู้ป่วยแต่ละราย ผู้ป่วยโรคหลอดเลือดสมอง เป็นผู้ป่วยกลุ่มใหญ่ทางกายภาพบำบัดที่มีปัญหาหลักด้านการเคลื่อนไหว ร่วมกับปัญหาอื่นๆ ที่แตกต่างกันไปในผู้ป่วยแต่ละราย ปัจจุบันมีหลายแบบประเมินสำหรับผู้ป่วยโรคหลอดเลือดสมอง บทความนี้มีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อแนะนำแบบประเมินที่ใช้ในการตรวจและประเมินผู้ป่วยโรคหลอดเลือดสมองให้เป็นที่รู้จักสำหรับนักกายภาพบำบัดไทยเพื่อเลือกใช้ตามวัตถุประสงค์ต่อไป วิธีการตรวจประเมินต่างๆ ที่รวบรวมในบทความนี้ อยู่บนพื้นฐานของการตรวจ ประเมิน ที่สอดคล้องกับบัญชีสากลเพื่อการจำแนกการทำงาน ความพิการ และสุขภาพ (International Classification of Functioning and Health, ICF) เพื่อการตรวจหาปัญหาทั้งระดับโครงสร้างและหน้าที่ และกิจกรรม ในผู้ป่วยโรคหลอดเลือดสมอง
Article Details
How to Cite
1.
บท
บทความวิชาการ
References
1. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research : applications to practice. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2009.
2. Hill K. Manual for clinical outcome measurement in adult neurological physiotherapy. 3rd ed. Victoria: Australian Physiotherapy Association Neurology Special Group (Victoria); 2005.
3. Finch E. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures: a guide to enhanced clinical decision making. 2nd ed. Ontario: BC Decker; 2002.
4. Geyh S, Cieza A, Schouten J, Dickson H, Frommelt P, Omar Z, et al. ICF core sets for stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2004;Suppl 44:135-41.
5. Wang P, Li HG, Guo Y, Xie YX, Ge RD, Qiu ZY. The feasibility and validity of the comprehensive ICF core set for stroke in Chinese clinical settings. Clin Rehabil. 2014; 28(2):159-71.
6. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13-31.
7. Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16(3):232-40.
8. Shelton FD, Volpe BT, al. e. Motor impairment as a predictor of functional recovery and guide to rehabilitation treatment after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001;15(3):229-37.
9. Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Lin KC, Chang YF, Chen CL, Liu JS. Responsiveness and validity of three outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2009; 40(4): 1386-91.
10. Whitall J, Savin DN, Jr., Harris-Love M, Waller SM. Psychometric properties of a modified Wolf Motor Function test for people with mild and moderate upper-extremity hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(5):656-60.
11. Lincoln NB, Crow JL, Jackson JM, Waters GR, Adams SA, Hodgson P. The unreliability of sensory assessments. Clin Rehabil. 1991;5:273-82.
12. Lincoln NB, Jackson JM, Adams SA. Reliability and revision of the Nottingham sensory assessment for stroke patients. Physiotherapy. 1998;84(8):358-65.
13. Winward CE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. The Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Performance (RASP): standardization and reliability data. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(5):523-33.
14. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67(2):206-7.
15. Gregson JM, Leathley A, Moore P, Sharma AK, Smith TL, Watkins CL. Reliability of the tone assessment scale and the modified Ashworth Scale as clinical tools for assessing poststroke spasticity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:1013-6.
16. Blackburn M, van Viet P, P. MS. Reliability of measurements obtained with the modified Ashworth Scale in the lower extremities of people with stroke. Phys Ther. 2002;82:25-34.
17. Shaw J, Bially J, Deurvorst N, Macfie C, Brouwer B. Clinical and physiological measures of tone in chronic stroke. Neurol Report. 1999;23(1):19-24.
18. Damiano DL, Quinlivan JM, Owen BF, Payne P, Nelson KC, Abel MF. What does the Ashworth scale really measure and are instrumented measures more valid and precise? Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002;44(2):112-8.
19. Smith AW, Jamshidi M, Lo SK. Clinical measurement of muscle tone using a velocity-corrected Modified Ashworth Scale. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81:202-6.
20. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther. 1985;65(2):175-80.
21. Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Reliability of the Modified Motor Assessment Scale and the Barthel Index. Phys Ther. 1988;68(7):1077-81.
22. Poole JL, Whitney SL. Motor assessment scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69(3 Pt 1):195-7.
23. Malouin F, Pichard L, Bonneau C, Durand A, Corriveau D. Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke: comparison of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and the Motor Assessment Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(11):1206-12.
24. Ratanapinunchai J, Lukuan M, Rongsawad K. Effects of short-duration treadmill training with body weight support on recovery of functional movements of the lower extremity in patients with hemiplegia: a preliminary study. Thai J Phys Ther. 2005;27(2):52-66.
25. Phankaew U., Tipchatyotin S., Chantorn P., Moungsunthorn K., Putharaksa P., Pianmanakit S., et al. Interrater Reliability of the Thai Version Motor Assessment Scale for Evaluation of Upper Extremity Function in Stroke Patients. J Thai Rehabil Med. 2007;17(1):20-5.
26. Collen FM, Wade GF, Robb B, C. M. The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud. 1991;13:50-4.
27. Lincoln N, D. L. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy. 1979;65:48-51.
28. Kurtais Y, Kucukdeveci A, Elhan A, Yilmaz A, Kalli T, Tur BS, et al. Psychometric properties of the Rivemead Motor Assessment: its utility in stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:1055-61.
29. Lennon S, Hastings M. Key physiotherapy indicators for quality of stroke care. Physiotherapy. 1996;82(12):655-64.
30. Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Mao HF. Validity and responsiveness of the rivermead mobility index in stroke patients. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000;32(3):140-2.
31. Lennon S, Johnson L. The modified rivermead mobility index: validity and reliability. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22(18):833-9.
32. Daley K, Mayo NE, Danys I, Cabot R, Wood-Dauphinee S. The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM): refining and validating the content. Physiotherapy Can. 1997;49:269-78.
33. Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Higgins J, Salbach NM, Finch L, Wood-Dauphinee SL. The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM): A comparison with other measures used to evaluate effects of stroke and rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2003;83(7):617-30.
34. Wang CH, Hsieh CL, Dai MH, Chen CH, Lai YF. Inter-rater reliability and validity of the stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement (STREAM) instrument. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34:20-4.
35. Hsueh IP, Wang WC, Wang CH, Sheu CF, Lo SK, Lin JH, et al. A simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement instrument. Phys Ther. 2006;86(7):936-43.
36. Hsueh IP, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, Lee S, Hsieh CL, Lin JH. Psychometric Comparisons of 2 Versions of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale and 2 Versions of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement. Neurorehab Neural Re. 2008; 22(6):737-44.
37. Hsueh IP, Wang CH, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke. Stroke. 2003;34(7):1741-5.
38. Lu WS, Wang CH, Lin JH, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. The minimal detectable change of the simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement measure. J Rehabil Med. 2008; 40:615-9.
39. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF: World Health Organization; 2001.
40. Jette AM. Toward a Common Language for Function, Disability, and Health. Physical Therapy. 2006;86(5):726-34.
41. Bohannon RW. Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20-79 years: reference values and determinants. Age Ageing. 1997;26(1):15-9.
42. Richards C, Malouin F, Wood-Dauphinee S. Gait velocity as an outcome measure of locomotor recovery after stroke. In: Craik RA, Oatis C, editors. Gait analysis: Theory and Applications. St Louis: Mosby; 1995. p. 355-64.
43. Robinson JL, Smidt GL. Quantitative gait evaluation in the clinic. Phys Ther 1981;61:351-3.
44. Van de Port IG, Kwakkel G, Lindeman E. Community walking and gait speed. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(1):23-7.
45. Dickstien R. Rehabilitation of gait speed after stroke: a critical review of intervention approaches. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(649):649-60.
46. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR. Gait assessment for neurologically impaired patients. Standards for outcome assessment. Phys Ther. 1986;66:1530-9.
47. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther. 1984;64:35-40.
48. Mehrholz J, Wagner K, Rutte K, Meissner D, Pohl M. Predictive validity and responsiveness of the functional ambulation category in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(10):1314-9.
49. Balke B. A simple field test for the assessment of physical fitness. Rep Civ Aeromed Res Inst US. 1963;53:1 - 8.
50. Blennerhassett J, Dite W. Additional task-related practice improves mobility and upper limb function early after stroke: A randomised controlled trial. Aust J Physiother. 2004; 50(4):219-24.
51. Jorgensen JR, Bech-Pedersen DT, Zeeman P, Sorensen J, Andersen LL, Schonberger M. Effect of intensive outpatient physical training on gait performance and cardiovascular health in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Phys Ther. 2010;90(4):527-37.
52. Michael K, Goldberg AP, Treuth MS, Beans J, Normandt P, Macko RF. Progressive adaptive physical activity in stroke improves balance, gait, and fitness: preliminary results. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16(2):133-9.
53. Mahoney FL, Barthel D. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med Journal. 1965;14:56-61.
54. Kalra L, Dale P, Crome P. Evaluation of a clinical score for prognostic stratification of elderly stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1994; 23(6):492-8.
55. Cohen ME, Marino RJ. The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81 (Suppl2): S21-S9.
56. Mackintosh S. Functional Independence Measure: commentary. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55:65.
57. Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Clark DO, Biller J. Development of a stroke-s quality of life scale. Stroke. 1999;30(7):1362-9.
58. Khampolsiri T, Pothiban L, Sucamvang K, Panuthai S. A home-based nursing intervention for enhancing quality of stroke survivors. Chula Med J. 2006; 50 (10): 707-25.
2. Hill K. Manual for clinical outcome measurement in adult neurological physiotherapy. 3rd ed. Victoria: Australian Physiotherapy Association Neurology Special Group (Victoria); 2005.
3. Finch E. Physical rehabilitation outcome measures: a guide to enhanced clinical decision making. 2nd ed. Ontario: BC Decker; 2002.
4. Geyh S, Cieza A, Schouten J, Dickson H, Frommelt P, Omar Z, et al. ICF core sets for stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2004;Suppl 44:135-41.
5. Wang P, Li HG, Guo Y, Xie YX, Ge RD, Qiu ZY. The feasibility and validity of the comprehensive ICF core set for stroke in Chinese clinical settings. Clin Rehabil. 2014; 28(2):159-71.
6. Fugl-Meyer AR, Jaasko L, Leyman I, Olsson S, Steglind S. The post-stroke hemiplegic patient 1. a method for evaluation of physical performance. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7:13-31.
7. Gladstone DJ, Danells CJ, Black SE. The Fugl-Meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002;16(3):232-40.
8. Shelton FD, Volpe BT, al. e. Motor impairment as a predictor of functional recovery and guide to rehabilitation treatment after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2001;15(3):229-37.
9. Hsieh YW, Wu CY, Lin KC, Chang YF, Chen CL, Liu JS. Responsiveness and validity of three outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2009; 40(4): 1386-91.
10. Whitall J, Savin DN, Jr., Harris-Love M, Waller SM. Psychometric properties of a modified Wolf Motor Function test for people with mild and moderate upper-extremity hemiparesis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(5):656-60.
11. Lincoln NB, Crow JL, Jackson JM, Waters GR, Adams SA, Hodgson P. The unreliability of sensory assessments. Clin Rehabil. 1991;5:273-82.
12. Lincoln NB, Jackson JM, Adams SA. Reliability and revision of the Nottingham sensory assessment for stroke patients. Physiotherapy. 1998;84(8):358-65.
13. Winward CE, Halligan PW, Wade DT. The Rivermead Assessment of Somatosensory Performance (RASP): standardization and reliability data. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(5):523-33.
14. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67(2):206-7.
15. Gregson JM, Leathley A, Moore P, Sharma AK, Smith TL, Watkins CL. Reliability of the tone assessment scale and the modified Ashworth Scale as clinical tools for assessing poststroke spasticity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:1013-6.
16. Blackburn M, van Viet P, P. MS. Reliability of measurements obtained with the modified Ashworth Scale in the lower extremities of people with stroke. Phys Ther. 2002;82:25-34.
17. Shaw J, Bially J, Deurvorst N, Macfie C, Brouwer B. Clinical and physiological measures of tone in chronic stroke. Neurol Report. 1999;23(1):19-24.
18. Damiano DL, Quinlivan JM, Owen BF, Payne P, Nelson KC, Abel MF. What does the Ashworth scale really measure and are instrumented measures more valid and precise? Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002;44(2):112-8.
19. Smith AW, Jamshidi M, Lo SK. Clinical measurement of muscle tone using a velocity-corrected Modified Ashworth Scale. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81:202-6.
20. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther. 1985;65(2):175-80.
21. Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Reliability of the Modified Motor Assessment Scale and the Barthel Index. Phys Ther. 1988;68(7):1077-81.
22. Poole JL, Whitney SL. Motor assessment scale for stroke patients: concurrent validity and interrater reliability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988;69(3 Pt 1):195-7.
23. Malouin F, Pichard L, Bonneau C, Durand A, Corriveau D. Evaluating motor recovery early after stroke: comparison of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment and the Motor Assessment Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(11):1206-12.
24. Ratanapinunchai J, Lukuan M, Rongsawad K. Effects of short-duration treadmill training with body weight support on recovery of functional movements of the lower extremity in patients with hemiplegia: a preliminary study. Thai J Phys Ther. 2005;27(2):52-66.
25. Phankaew U., Tipchatyotin S., Chantorn P., Moungsunthorn K., Putharaksa P., Pianmanakit S., et al. Interrater Reliability of the Thai Version Motor Assessment Scale for Evaluation of Upper Extremity Function in Stroke Patients. J Thai Rehabil Med. 2007;17(1):20-5.
26. Collen FM, Wade GF, Robb B, C. M. The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud. 1991;13:50-4.
27. Lincoln N, D. L. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy. 1979;65:48-51.
28. Kurtais Y, Kucukdeveci A, Elhan A, Yilmaz A, Kalli T, Tur BS, et al. Psychometric properties of the Rivemead Motor Assessment: its utility in stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:1055-61.
29. Lennon S, Hastings M. Key physiotherapy indicators for quality of stroke care. Physiotherapy. 1996;82(12):655-64.
30. Hsieh CL, Hsueh IP, Mao HF. Validity and responsiveness of the rivermead mobility index in stroke patients. Scand J Rehabil Med 2000;32(3):140-2.
31. Lennon S, Johnson L. The modified rivermead mobility index: validity and reliability. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22(18):833-9.
32. Daley K, Mayo NE, Danys I, Cabot R, Wood-Dauphinee S. The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM): refining and validating the content. Physiotherapy Can. 1997;49:269-78.
33. Ahmed S, Mayo NE, Higgins J, Salbach NM, Finch L, Wood-Dauphinee SL. The Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM): A comparison with other measures used to evaluate effects of stroke and rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2003;83(7):617-30.
34. Wang CH, Hsieh CL, Dai MH, Chen CH, Lai YF. Inter-rater reliability and validity of the stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement (STREAM) instrument. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34:20-4.
35. Hsueh IP, Wang WC, Wang CH, Sheu CF, Lo SK, Lin JH, et al. A simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement instrument. Phys Ther. 2006;86(7):936-43.
36. Hsueh IP, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, Lee S, Hsieh CL, Lin JH. Psychometric Comparisons of 2 Versions of the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale and 2 Versions of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement. Neurorehab Neural Re. 2008; 22(6):737-44.
37. Hsueh IP, Wang CH, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Comparison of psychometric properties of three mobility measures for patients with stroke. Stroke. 2003;34(7):1741-5.
38. Lu WS, Wang CH, Lin JH, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. The minimal detectable change of the simplified stroke rehabilitation assessment of movement measure. J Rehabil Med. 2008; 40:615-9.
39. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF: World Health Organization; 2001.
40. Jette AM. Toward a Common Language for Function, Disability, and Health. Physical Therapy. 2006;86(5):726-34.
41. Bohannon RW. Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20-79 years: reference values and determinants. Age Ageing. 1997;26(1):15-9.
42. Richards C, Malouin F, Wood-Dauphinee S. Gait velocity as an outcome measure of locomotor recovery after stroke. In: Craik RA, Oatis C, editors. Gait analysis: Theory and Applications. St Louis: Mosby; 1995. p. 355-64.
43. Robinson JL, Smidt GL. Quantitative gait evaluation in the clinic. Phys Ther 1981;61:351-3.
44. Van de Port IG, Kwakkel G, Lindeman E. Community walking and gait speed. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(1):23-7.
45. Dickstien R. Rehabilitation of gait speed after stroke: a critical review of intervention approaches. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008;22(649):649-60.
46. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR. Gait assessment for neurologically impaired patients. Standards for outcome assessment. Phys Ther. 1986;66:1530-9.
47. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. reliability and meaningfulness. Phys Ther. 1984;64:35-40.
48. Mehrholz J, Wagner K, Rutte K, Meissner D, Pohl M. Predictive validity and responsiveness of the functional ambulation category in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(10):1314-9.
49. Balke B. A simple field test for the assessment of physical fitness. Rep Civ Aeromed Res Inst US. 1963;53:1 - 8.
50. Blennerhassett J, Dite W. Additional task-related practice improves mobility and upper limb function early after stroke: A randomised controlled trial. Aust J Physiother. 2004; 50(4):219-24.
51. Jorgensen JR, Bech-Pedersen DT, Zeeman P, Sorensen J, Andersen LL, Schonberger M. Effect of intensive outpatient physical training on gait performance and cardiovascular health in people with hemiparesis after stroke. Phys Ther. 2010;90(4):527-37.
52. Michael K, Goldberg AP, Treuth MS, Beans J, Normandt P, Macko RF. Progressive adaptive physical activity in stroke improves balance, gait, and fitness: preliminary results. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16(2):133-9.
53. Mahoney FL, Barthel D. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med Journal. 1965;14:56-61.
54. Kalra L, Dale P, Crome P. Evaluation of a clinical score for prognostic stratification of elderly stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1994; 23(6):492-8.
55. Cohen ME, Marino RJ. The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81 (Suppl2): S21-S9.
56. Mackintosh S. Functional Independence Measure: commentary. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55:65.
57. Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Clark DO, Biller J. Development of a stroke-s quality of life scale. Stroke. 1999;30(7):1362-9.
58. Khampolsiri T, Pothiban L, Sucamvang K, Panuthai S. A home-based nursing intervention for enhancing quality of stroke survivors. Chula Med J. 2006; 50 (10): 707-25.