Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 6;7:100040. doi: 10.1016/j.toxcx.2020.100040

Table 6.

Disability Assessment Scale (DAS) for the lower limb.a

Stroke (N=411)
MS (N=119)
CP (N=77)
TBI (N=45)
SCI (N=42)
Tx1 (N=409)c Tx4 (N=150) Tx1 (N=117) Tx4 (N=54) Tx1 (N=77) Tx4 (N=31) Tx1 (N=45) Tx4 (N=14) Tx1 (N=42) Tx4 (N=15)
Dressing, N (%)
 0 - No disability 131 (32.0) 40 (26.7) 14 (12.0) 11 (20.4) 18 (23.4) 10 (32.3) 15 (33.3) 7 (50.0) 11 (26.2) 5 (33.3)
 1 - Mild disability 126 (30.8) 63 (42.0) 36 (30.8) 12 (22.2) 21 (27.3) 13 (41.9) 12 (26.7) 6 (42.9) 11 (26.2) 5 (33.3)
 2 - Moderate disability 116 (28.4) 39 (26.0) 32 (27.4) 19 (35.2) 25 (32.5) 6 (19.4) 12 (26.7) 1 ( 7.1) 15 (35.7) 3 (20.0)
 3 - Severe disability 36 ( 8.8) 8 ( 5.3) 35 (29.9) 12 (22.2) 13 (16.9) 2 ( 6.5) 6 (13.3) 0 ( 0.0) 5 (11.9) 2 (13.3)
 Odds ratio 1.6 1.9 3.5 2.5 2.2
 95% CI 1.0, 2.5 0.8, 4.5 1.3, 9.8 0.6, 11.0 0.5, 9.5
 F-valueb 2.8 1.4 3.1 0.6 0.6
 P-value 0.041 0.252 0.029 0.649 0.594
Hygiene, N (%)
 0 - No disability 196 (47.9) 70 (46.7) 28 (23.9) 17 (31.5) 27 (35.1) 18 (58.1) 22 (48.9) 8 (57.1) 18 (42.9) 6 (40.0)
 1 - Mild disability 98 (24.0) 40 (26.7) 25 (21.4) 8 (14.8) 24 (31.2) 7 (22.6) 9 (20.0) 3 (21.4) 11 (26.2) 5 (33.3)
 2 - Moderate disability 82 (20.0) 33 (22.0) 35 (29.9) 17 (31.5) 18 (23.4) 4 (12.9) 9 (20.0) 3 (21.4) 7 (16.7) 3 (20.0)
 3 - Severe disability 33 ( 8.1) 7 ( 4.7) 29 (24.8) 12 (22.2) 8 (10.4) 2 ( 6.5) 5 (11.1) 0 ( 0.0) 6 (14.3) 1 ( 6.7)
 Odds ratio 1.2 1.5 4.4 1.2 1.1
 95% CI 0.8, 2.0 0.7, 3.6 1.5, 13.2 0.2, 6.6 0.3, 5.2
 F-value 2.0 0.4 2.6 1.5 0.5
 P-value 0.108 0.736 0.056 0.218 0.709
Limb Posture, N (%)
 0 - No disability 109 (26.7) 41 (27.3) 15 (12.8) 9 (16.7) 14 (18.2) 7 (22.6) 9 (20.0) 5 (35.7) 10 (23.8) 4 (26.7)
 1 - Mild disability 104 (25.4) 56 (37.3) 22 (18.8) 13 (24.1) 15 (19.5) 13 (41.9) 11 (24.4) 3 (21.4) 10 (23.8) 4 (26.7)
 2 - Moderate disability 148 (36.2) 42 (28.0) 43 (36.8) 17 (31.5) 33 (42.9) 8 (25.8) 16 (35.6) 5 (35.7) 13 (31.0) 5 (33.3)
 3 - Severe disability 48 (11.7) 11 ( 7.3) 37 (31.6) 15 (27.8) 15 (19.5) 3 ( 9.7) 9 (20.0) 1 ( 7.1) 9 (21.4) 2 (13.3)
 Odds ratio 2.6 2.2 3.0 1.5 2.3
 95% CI 1.6, 4.0 1.0, 5.0 1.2, 7.9 0.4, 6.2 0.5, 9.5
 F-value 7.6 2.1 4.0 0.6 2.0
 P-value < 0.0001 0.099 0.009 0.614 0.129
Pain, N (%)
 0 - No disability 201 (49.1) 83 (55.3) 37 (31.6) 14 (25.9) 32 (41.6) 14 (45.2) 22 (48.9) 8 (57.1) 17 (40.5) 6 (40.0)
 1 - Mild disability 103 (25.2) 40 (26.7) 23 (19.7) 18 (33.3) 21 (27.3) 7 (22.6) 10 (22.2) 6 (42.9) 7 (16.7) 5 (33.3)
 2 - Moderate disability 74 (18.1) 23 (15.3) 31 (26.5) 13 (24.1) 13 (16.9) 8 (25.8) 9 (20.0) 0 ( 0.0) 10 (23.8) 1 ( 6.7)
 3 - Severe disability 31 ( 7.6) 4 ( 2.7) 26 (22.2) 9 (16.7) 11 (14.3) 2 ( 6.5) 4 ( 8.9) 0 ( 0.0) 8 (19.0) 3 (20.0)
 Odds ratio 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.5 1.6
 95% CI 1.2, 3.1 0.9, 4.2 0.7, 5.2 0.5, 12.4 0.3, 7.6
 F-value 10.7 1.5 1.9 0.5 0.4
 P-value < 0.0001 0.205 0.127 0.663 0.755
Mobility, N (%)
 0 - No disability 90 (22.0) 25 (16.7) 4 ( 3.4) 4 ( 7.4) 10 (13.0) 4 (12.9) 6 (13.3) 4 (28.6) 8 (19.0) 4 (26.7)
 1 - Mild disability 73 (17.8) 43 (28.7) 10 ( 8.5) 9 (16.7) 11 (14.3) 12 (38.7) 6 (13.3) 3 (21.4) 3 ( 7.1) 4 (26.7)
 2 - Moderate disability 165 (40.3) 63 (42.0) 42 (35.9) 20 (37.0) 28 (36.4) 10 (32.3) 21 (46.7) 7 (50.0) 14 (33.3) 5 (33.3)
 3 - Severe disability 81 (19.8) 19 (12.7) 61 (52.1) 21 (38.9) 28 (36.4) 5 (16.1) 12 (26.7) 0 ( 0.0) 17 (40.5) 2 (13.3)
 Odds ratio 2.1 4.3 5.2 7.2 8.0
 95% CI 1.3, 3.3 1.7, 11.3 1.9, 14.8 1.5, 34.3 1.8, 34.6
 F-value 4.4 4.1 4.9 2.8 3.8
 P-value 0.004 0.007 0.003 0.049 0.013

CI: confidence interval, CP: cerebral palsy, MS: multiple sclerosis, N: number of patients, SCI: spinal cord injury, TBI: traumatic brain injury, Tx: treatment session.

a

DAS objectively evaluates functional impairment resulting from spasticity across several subscales, including dressing, hygiene, limb posture, and pain (Brashear et al., 2002b). Patients were scored on a 4-point scale (range: 0–3) for each subscale, where a “0” represents no disability and a “3” represents severe disability (normal activities limited). DAS was assessed by the clinician at treatment session 1 and at each subsequent treatment session. However, to allow for comparison across etiologies, only treatment sessions 1 and 4 are shown here. Complete DAS data tables are provided in the supplemental materials for each etiology.

b

Data were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression. The F-value and level of significance (P-value) are shown for each subscale for the comparison across treatment sessions 1 to 4.

c

Data from treatment session 1 for each etiology were used as the reference for statistical analysis.