(Dal Bello-Haas et al, 2011, Parkinson's Disease) (Brusse et al, 2005 n = 25 community-dwelling older adults, 11 female, 14 male, with Parkinson's Disease mean age = 76 (7) years mean H & Y Stage Scale = 2, Parkinson's Disease) (Lemay & Nadeau, 2010 n = 32 AIS D level mean age = 47.9 (12.8) mean time post lesion 77.2 (44.3) days), Acute SCI)Ĭonvergent validity Excellent correlation of TUG with the following measures: Excellent correlation of TUG and 10M however, relationship changes over time.(van Hedel 2008 (n = 6-127), Acute, Subacute, Chronic SCI) TUG should be used with caution in people with poorer walking ability. Strong relationships maintained among TUG, 10MWT, and 6MWT. Overall, improved validity of TUG with WISCI II in individuals who are less impaired, higher walking ability, and do not require assistance. Excellent associations between TUG and BBS ( ρ = -0.70, p Excellent associations between TUG and CB&M ( ρ = -0.75, p
(Knorr et al, 2010 n = 44 community-dwelling persons after stroke sex = 24 males and 20 females mean age = 62.6 (12.6) years mean time post-stroke = 98.6 (52.6) days, Stroke) Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N) Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)Īppropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N) Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N) Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research: Recommendations based on vestibular diagnosisīenign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV) Recommendations for use based on ambulatory status after brain injury: Recommendations based on SCI AIS Classification: Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken: Recommendations Based on Parkinson Disease Hoehn and Yahr stage: Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient: Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group / Unable to Recommend These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.įor detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit: This wrapper may cache the data sent out, which you can inspect either after, on on-the-fly (as the subsequent handlers write to it).Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (SCI EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. If you also want to read the response body, then you have to wrap the http.ResponseWriter you get, and pass the wrapper on the chain. If subsequent handlers check those, you would also need to modify those too! Inspecting / modifying response body
#Go form full
You have full control over it.Ĭare must be taken though, as there might be other HTTP fields like content-length and checksums which may become invalid if you modify only the data. Note that you may even modify the contents of the byte slice you use to create the "new" body. For this you may use ioutil.NopCloser() which wraps an io.Reader, and returns an io.ReadCloser, whose added Close() method will be a no-op (does nothing). The last missing piece is to make the io.Reader an io.ReadCloser, because bytes.Buffer does not have a Close() method. You may use bytes.NewBuffer() to obtain an io.Reader from a byte slice. One option is to read the whole body using ioutil.ReadAll(), which gives you the body as a byte slice. So when you advance in the chain, the next handler can read the same body. When you first read the body, you have to store it so once you're done with it, you can set a new io.ReadCloser as the request body constructed from the original data.
0 kommentar(er)
