Modifying the Mobility Scale for Acute Stroke (MSAS) for All Stroke Phases (MSAllS): Measurement Properties and Clinical Application.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and examine the measurement properties and interpretability of the Mobility Scale for "All" Stroke Phases (MSAllS) as a potential single outcome measure to capture improvements in physical function throughout the stroke continuum. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Inpatient rehabilitation unit. PARTICIPANTS: People after stroke at discharge from rehabilitation (N=309). INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We developed MSAllS by extending the highest MSAS level (walk 10 m independently) with 4 gait speed levels. To establish a clinical anchor, we extracted a 4-level discharge outcome. To assess the distributional properties and internal consistency of MSAllS, we evaluated its ceiling effects and calculated the Cronbach alpha, respectively. To assess structural validity, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis. To assess (i) its convergent validity with the FIM and (ii) its predictive validity with the clinical anchor, we used Spearman's rank correlations. To evaluate the clinical interpretability of MSAllS, we used an item-response theory-based method to estimate MSAllS thresholds associated with the clinical anchor. RESULTS: The MSAllS had lower ceiling effects compared with MSAS (0% vs 25%). Internal consistency of MSAllS was excellent (α=0.94). Structural validity of MSAllS demonstrated a good fit (Comparative Fit Index=0.95; Tucker-Lewis Index=0.92; Root Means Square Error of Approximation=0.17). MSAllS demonstrated a moderate correlation (rho=0.66) with FIM score and with the clinical anchor (rho=0.75). MSAllS thresholds for increasing levels of the clinical anchor were 22 (20.8 to 23.6) - at least moderate assistance with walking/transfers, 28 (27.5 to 29.4) - at most supervision with walking, and 33 (32.5 to 33.4) - able to walk unassisted. CONCLUSION: The MSAllS showed adequate measurement properties and clinical interpretability. MSAllS has the potential to be a single universal measure to evaluate physical function after stroke but further evaluation of clinical interpretability is required.

Effects of Pilates-based exercises on pain and disability in individuals with persistent nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review with meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare pain and disability in individuals with persistent nonspecific low back pain who were treated with Pilates exercises compared to minimal or other interventions. METHODS: Searches of Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane library, PEDro, and ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis databases were conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected and reviewed if they compared pain and disability in individuals with persistent nonspecific low back pain who were treated with Pilates exercises compared to other treatment approaches. Quality of the trials was evaluated. Data for pain and disability scores were extracted. Narrative synthesis plus meta-analyses were performed, with either a fixed-effects or random-effects model, standardized mean differences (SMDs), and tests for heterogeneity. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were identified and included in the meta-analyses. Data pooling was performed using RevMan 5. When compared to minimal intervention, Pilates-based exercise provided superior pain relief (pooled SMD, -2.72; 95% CI: -5.33, -0.11; P = .04) but the pooled disability scores were not significantly different (pooled SMD, -0.74; 95% CI: -1.81, 0.33;P = .17). No significant differences were found when comparing Pilates-based exercise to other forms of exercise for pain (pooled SMD, 0.03; 95% CI: -0.52, 0.58; P = .92) or disability scores (pooled SMD, -0.41; 95% CI: -0.96, 0.14; P = .14). CONCLUSION: Pilates-based exercises are superior to minimal intervention for pain relief. Existing evidence does not establish superiority of Pilates-based exercise to other forms of exercise to reduce pain and disability for patients with persistent nonspecific low back pain. However, the relatively low quality of existing studies and the heterogeneity of pooled studies in this systematic review combine to suggest that these results should be interpreted with caution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level 1a.