Scoping review maps upper-limb assessment methods in stroke patients, indicating the need for clearer protocols.
Background/Objectives: The sit-to-stand task is widely used to assess functional performance after stroke; however, how upper-limb involvement is addressed methodologically during this transition remains unclear. This study aimed to map how upper-limb postural orientation has been considered, operationalised and controlled during sit-to-stand assessment in individuals after stroke, with particular attention to experimental protocols, assessment instruments, and biomechanical outcome measures. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, and the literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. Results: Across the 10 included studies, 264 unique individuals after stroke were assessed from eight independent samples (sample-weighted mean age: 60.2 years). Three studies shared the same participant cohort and were counted once in all aggregate figures. Most studies adopted cross-sectional observational designs (n = 7), and laboratory-based biomechanical settings were the most common assessment context (n = 6). Upper-limb conditions were explicitly reported in all studies but were predominantly constrained or standardised, most frequently with the arms crossed over the chest (n = 4). Only four studies compared different upper-limb conditions. Instrumented assessments primarily relied on 3D motion analysis systems and force platforms, whereas clinical assessments focused mainly on temporal performance measures. Comprehensive 3D analyses of upper-limb contribution and multi-segmental coordination remain scarce. Conclusions: This scoping review reveals limited and methodologically heterogeneous evidence on upper-limb involvement during sit-to-stand assessment after stroke, underscoring the need for greater methodological clarity and biomechanical characterisation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferreira et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: