ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intrathecal baclofen treatment of spasticity, administered via a cervical catheter tip. DESIGN: A review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library up to September 2020. No restriction in study design. Two reviewers independently evaluated eligibility, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Studies were included in which patients were treated with intrathecal baclofen for spasticity, with the catheter tip at or above the first thoracic level, independent of diagnosis and age. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible, with a moderate to critical risk of bias. Improvement in spasticity was seen only in the upper extremity in 6% of subjects, only in the lower extremity in 2%, in both upper and lower extremities in 50% and without specification of location in 41%. Upper extremity function improved in 88% of cases. Neither drug-related (1%) nor technical (21%) complications occurred more often than in lower placement of the tip. Effects on respiratory function and sleep apnoea were not investigated. CONCLUSION: Cervically administered intrathecal baclofen seems to improve upper extremity spasticity and function, without causing more complications than thoracolumbar intrathecal baclofen. However, the mainly drug-related complications have not been thoroughly investigated and the available literature is of poor methodological quality. Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of this procedure.
Subject(s)
Baclofen/administration & dosage , Muscle Relaxants, Central/administration & dosage , Muscle Spasticity/drug therapy , Adult , Arm/physiopathology , Baclofen/adverse effects , Baclofen/therapeutic use , Catheterization/adverse effects , Humans , Infusions, Spinal/adverse effects , Infusions, Spinal/instrumentation , Leg/physiopathology , Male , Middle Aged , Muscle Relaxants, Central/adverse effects , Muscle Relaxants, Central/therapeutic useABSTRACT
Purpose To evaluate validity and reliability of the upper extremity work demands (UEWD) scale. Methods Participants from different levels of physical work demands, based on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles categories, were included. A historical database of 74 workers was added for factor analysis. Criterion validity was evaluated by comparing observed and self-reported UEWD scores. To assess structural validity, a factor analysis was executed. For reliability, the difference between two self-reported UEWD scores, the smallest detectable change (SDC), test-retest reliability and internal consistency were determined. Results Fifty-four participants were observed at work and 51 of them filled in the UEWD twice with a mean interval of 16.6 days (SD 3.3, range = 10-25 days). Criterion validity of the UEWD scale was moderate (r = .44, p = .001). Factor analysis revealed that 'force and posture' and 'repetition' subscales could be distinguished with Cronbach's alpha of .79 and .84, respectively. Reliability was good; there was no significant difference between repeated measurements. An SDC of 5.0 was found. Test-retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient for agreement = .84) and all item-total correlations were >.30. There were two pairs of highly related items. Conclusion Reliability of the UEWD scale was good, but criterion validity was moderate. Based on current results, a modified UEWD scale (2 items removed, 1 item reworded, divided into 2 subscales) was proposed. Since observation appeared to be an inappropriate gold standard, we advise to investigate other types of validity, such as construct validity, in further research.
