ReviewMedical & biological engineering & computing2011
Assessing the effectiveness of robot facilitated neurorehabilitation for relearning motor skills following a stroke.
Review in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Neurosciences and Sports Rehabilitation in ACLR: A Narrative Review on Winning Alliance Strategies and Connecting the Dots.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
- Decoding lower-limb kinematic parameters during pedaling tasks using deep learning approaches and EEG.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2024Article
- Robotics and AI into healthcare from the perspective of European regulation: who is responsible for medical malpractice?Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Disability 4.0: bioethical considerations on the use of embodied artificial intelligence.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Literature review of stroke assessment for upper-extremity physical function via EEG, EMG, kinematic, and kinetic measurements and their reliability.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Review
- Treatment effects of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with motor relearning procedure on spasticity and limb motor function in stroke patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- A High-Level Control Algorithm Based on sEMG Signalling for an Elbow Joint SMA Exoskeleton.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Trends in rehabilitation robotics.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A growing awareness of the potential for machine-mediated neurorehabilitation has led to several novel concepts for delivering these therapies. To get from laboratory demonstrators and prototypes to the point where the concepts can be used by clinicians in practice still requires significant additional effort, not least in the requirement to assess and measure the impact of any proposed solution. To be widely accepted a study is required to use validated clinical measures but these tend to be subjective, costly to administer and may be insensitive to the effect of the treatment. Although this situation will not change, there is good reason to consider both clinical and mechanical assessments of recovery. This article outlines the problems in measuring the impact of an intervention and explores the concept of providing more mechanical assessment techniques and ultimately the possibility of combining the assessment process with aspects of the intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21779903What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.