Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment and Measurement of Spasticity in MS: State of the Evidence

  • Demyelinating Disorders (J. Bernard & M. Cameron, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to familiarize the reader with assessments and measurement of spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Spasticity affects 60–84% of people with MS, worsening as disability worsens and impacting activity, participation, and quality of life. Spasticity manifests in many ways, including spasms, resistance to passive stretch, pain, and perception of tightness, and can affect muscles throughout the body, making assessment and quantification of spasticity challenging but important. Assessment tools include those quantified by clinicians, instrumentation, and patients.

Recent Findings

Most tools for measuring spasticity are based on clinician scoring, were developed many years ago, and have undergone minimal recent advances. More recent developments are patient-reported outcome measures for spasticity, including the Numeric Rating Scale for Spasticity (NRS-S) and the disease-specific Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale-88 (MSSS), and, most recently, imaging through elastography.

Summary

MS-related spasticity is common and often disabling. There are various spasticity measurement tools available, each with advantages and limitations. Newer tools are likely to be developed as our understanding of spasticity in MS grows.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Wallin MT, Culpepper WJ, Campbell JD, Nelson LM, Langer-Gould A, Marrie RA, et al. The prevalence of MS in the United States: a population-based estimate using health claims data. Neurology. 2019;92(10):e1029–40. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007035.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rizzo MA, Hadjimichael OC, Preiningerova J, Vollmer TL. Prevalence and treatment of spasticity reported by multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler. 2004;10(5):589–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Multiple Sclerosis Council for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Spasticity management and multiple sclerosis: evidence-based management strategies for spasticity in multiple sclerosis. 2003.

  4. Haselkorn J, Loomis S. Multiple sclerosis and spasticity. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2005;16(2):467–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nilsagård Y, Gunn H, Freeman J, Hoang P, Lord S, Mazumder R, et al. Falls in people with MS--an individual data meta-analysis from studies from Australia, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States. Mult Scler. 2015;21(1):92–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458514538884.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cameron MH, Poel AJ, Haselkorn JK, Linke A, Bourdette D. Falls requiring medical attention among veterans with multiple sclerosis: a cohort study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(1):13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sosnoff JJ, Gappmaier E, Frame A, Motl RW. Influence of spasticity on mobility and balance in persons with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2011;35(3):129–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0b013e31822a8c40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Svennson J, Borg S, Nilsson P. Costs and quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients with spasticity. Acta Neurol Scand. 2014;129(1):13–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Amatya B, Khan F, La Mantia L, Demetrios M, Wade DT. Non pharmacological interventions for spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD009974. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009974.pub2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hughes C, Howard IM. Spasticity management in multiple sclerosis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2013;24(4):593–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2013.07.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lance JW. Symposium synopsis. In: Feldman RG, Young RR, Koella WP, editors. Spasticity: disorder of motor control. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1980. p. 485–94.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nance PW, Sheremata WA, Lynch SG, Vollmer T, Hudson S, Francis GS, et al. Relationship of the antispasticity effect of tizanidine to plasma concentration in patients with multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol. 1997;54(6):731–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ashworth B. Preliminary trial of carisoprodol in multiple sclerosis. Practitioner. 1964;192:540–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth Scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67:206–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shirley Ryan Ability Lab website https://www.sralab.org/rehabilitation-measures. Accessed June 2019.

  16. Boyd RN, Graham HK. Objective measurement of clinical findings in the use of botulinum toxin type A for the management of children with cerebral palsy. Eur J Neurol. 1999;6:S4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.1999.tb0031.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. • Naghdi S, Ansari NN, Ghorbani-Rad S, Senobari M, Sahraian MA. Intra-rater reliability of the Modified Tardieu Scale in patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurol Sci. 2017;38(1):93–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-016-2714-7 These authors concluded that intra-rater reliability for the MTS when assessing lower limb muscle spasticity in PwMS by a physical therapist with no previous experience in the scale, and with limited training, is not good.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wartenberg R. Pendulousness of the legs as a diagnostic test. Neurology. 1951;1:18–24 From 4th International Neurological Congress, 1949.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bar-On L, Aertbeliën E, Wambacq H, Severijns D, Lambrecht K, Dan C, et al. A clinical measurement to quantify spasticity in children with cerebral palsy by integration of multidimensional signals. Gait Posture. 2013;38(1):141–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bar-On L, Van Campenhout A, Desloovere K, Aertbeliën E, Huenaerts C, Vandendoorent B, et al. Is an instrumented spasticity assessment an improvement over clinical spasticity scales in assessing and predicting the response to integrated botulinum toxin type a treatment in children with cerebral palsy? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):515–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.08.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stillman B, Phty D, McMeeken J. A video-based version of the pendulum test: technique and normal response. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:166–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nance PW, Bugaresti J, Shellenberger K, Sheremata W, Martinez-Azizala A. the North American Tizanidine Study GroupEfficacy and safety of tizanidine in the treatment of spasticity in patients with spinal cord injury. Neurol. 1994;44(suppl 9):S44–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Voerman GE, Gregoric M, Hermens HJ. Neurophysiological methods for the assessment of spasticity: the Hoffmann reflex, the tendon reflex, and the stretch reflex. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:33–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sosnoff JJ, Shin S, Motl RW. Multiple sclerosis and postural control: the role of spasticity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(1):93–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2009.09.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. • Illomei G, Spinicci G, Locci E, Marrosu MG. Muscle elastography: a new imaging technique for multiple sclerosis spasticity measurement. Neurol Sci. 2017;38(3):433–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-016-2780-x These authors describe muscle elastography, a new approach to quantifying spasticity using ultrasound, and report strong correlation with the Ashworth Scale and similar responsiveness to the Numeric Rating Scale for Spasticity.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bar-On L, Aertbeliën E, Molenaers G, Dan B, Desloovere K. Manually controlled instrumented spasticity assessments: a systematic review of psychometric properties. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014;56(10):932–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kremer TR, Van Dillen LR, Wagner JM. Dynamometer-based measure of spasticity confirms limited association between plantarflexor spasticity and walking function in persons with multiple sclerosis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(6):975–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ofori J, Freeman J, Logan A, Rapson R, Zajieck J, Hobart J, et al. An investigation of commonly prescribed stretches of the ankle plantarflexors in people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Biomech. 2016;37:22–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.05.013.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Dinan MA, Compton KL, Dhillon JK, Hammill BG, DeWitt EM, Weinfurt KP, et al. Use of patient-reported outcomes in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Med Care. 2011;49(4):415–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Penn RD, Savoy SM, Corcos D, Latash M, Gottlieb G, Parke B, et al. Intrathecal baclofen for severe spinal spasticity. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(23):1517–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Jarrett L, Nandi P, Thompson AJ. Managing severe lower limb spasticity in multiple sclerosis: does intrathecal phenol have a role? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;73(6):705–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Farrar JT, Troxel AB, Stott C, Duncombe P, Jensen MP. Validity, reliability, and clinical importance of change in a 0-10 numeric rating scale measure of spasticity: a post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Ther. 2008;30(5):974–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.05.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Thompson AJ, Stiles IM, Ingram W, Vickery PJ, et al. Getting the measure of spasticity in multiple sclerosis: the Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale (MSSS-88). Brain. 2006;129:224–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Henze T, von Mackensen S, Lehrieder G, Zettl UK, Pfiffner C, Flachenecker P. Linguistic and psychometric validation of the MSSS-88 questionnaire for patients with multiple sclerosis and spasticity in Germany. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rodic SZ, Knezevic TI, Kisic-Tepavcevic DB, Dackovic JR, Dujmovic I, Pekmeovic TD, et al. Validation of the Serbian version of Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale 88 (MSSS-88). PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0147042. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147042.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Pandyan AD, Johnson GR, Price CI, Curless RH, Barnes MP, Rodgers H. A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and Modified Ashworth Scales as measures of spasticity. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13(5):373–83. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921599677595404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Malhotra S, Pandyan AD. Spasticity, an impairment that is poorly defined and poorly measured. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23:651–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Fleuren JFM, Voerman GE, Erren-Wolters CV, Snoek GJ, Rietman JS, Hermens HJ, et al. Stop using the Ashworth Scale for the assessment of spasticity. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;81(1):46–53. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2009.177071.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3303 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd., L226, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Cinda L. Hugos & Michelle H. Cameron

  2. VA Portland Health Care System, 3710 SW US Veterans Hospital Rd., R&D 27, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Cinda L. Hugos

  3. VA MS Center of Excellence-West, VA Portland Health Care System, 3710 SW US Veterans Hospital Rd., Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Michelle H. Cameron

Authors
  1. Cinda L. Hugos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle H. Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cinda L. Hugos.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Cinda L. Hugos declares no potential conflicts of interest. Michelle H. Cameron reports consulting fees from Adamas Pharmaceuticals and Greenwich Bioscience/GW Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Disclaimer

The contents do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Demyelinating Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hugos, C.L., Cameron, M.H. Assessment and Measurement of Spasticity in MS: State of the Evidence. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 19, 79 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-019-0991-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-019-0991-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation