Cargando…

Characterizing Touch Discrimination Impairment from Pooled Stroke Samples Using the Tactile Discrimination Test: Updated Criteria for Interpretation and Brief Test Version for Use in Clinical Practice Settings

Somatosensory loss post-stroke is common, with touch sensation characteristically impaired. Yet, quantitative, standardized measures of touch discrimination available for clinical use are currently limited. We aimed to characterize touch impairment and re-establish the criterion of abnormality of th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mak-Yuen, Yvonne Y. K., Matyas, Thomas A., Carey, Leeanne M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10137035/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37190498
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13040533
Descripción
Sumario:Somatosensory loss post-stroke is common, with touch sensation characteristically impaired. Yet, quantitative, standardized measures of touch discrimination available for clinical use are currently limited. We aimed to characterize touch impairment and re-establish the criterion of abnormality of the Tactile Discrimination Test (TDT) using pooled data and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of briefer test versions. Baseline data from stroke survivors (n = 207) and older neurologically healthy controls (n = 100) assessed on the TDT was extracted. Scores were re-analyzed to determine an updated criterion of impairment and the ability of brief test versions to detect impairment. Updated scoring using an area score was used to calculate the TDT percent maximum area (PMA) score. Touch impairment was common for the contralesional hand (83%) but also present in the ipsilesional hand (42%). The criterion of abnormality was established as 73.1 PMA across older adults and genders. High sensitivity and specificity were found for briefer versions of the TDT (25 vs. 50 trials; 12 or 15 vs. 25 trials), with sensitivity ranging between 91.8 and 96.4% and specificity between 72.5 and 95.0%. Conclusion: Updated criterion of abnormality and the high sensitivity and specificity of brief test versions support the use of the TDT in clinical practice settings.