Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25996374›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Robot-assisted arm assessments in spinal cord injured patients: a consideration of concept study.

Urs Keller, Sabine Schölch, Urs Albisser, Claudia Rudhe, Armin Curt, Robert Riener, Verena Klamroth-Marganska

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Robot-assisted assessment of muscle strength.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2017
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Robot-aided assessment of lower extremity functions: a review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2016
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Urs KellerSensory-Motor Systems Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sabine SchölchSensory-Motor Systems Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Urs AlbisserBalgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Claudia RudheBalgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Armin CurtBalgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Robert RienerSensory-Motor Systems Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Verena Klamroth-MarganskaSensory-Motor Systems Lab, Department of Health Sciences and Technology ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Universitätsklinik Balgrist · CHUniversity of Zurich · CHETH Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic assistance is increasingly used in neurological rehabilitation for enhanced training. Furthermore, therapy robots have the potential for accurate assessment of motor function in order to diagnose the patient status, to measure therapy progress or to feedback the movement performance to the patient and therapist in real time. We investigated whether a set of robot-based assessments that encompasses kinematic, kinetic and timing metrics is applicable, safe, reliable and comparable to clinical metrics for measurement of arm motor function. Twenty-four healthy subjects and five patients after spinal cord injury underwent robot-based assessments using the exoskeleton robot ARMin. Five different tasks were performed with aid of a visual display. Ten kinematic, kinetic and timing assessment parameters were extracted on joint- and end-effector level (active and passive range of motion, cubic reaching volume, movement time, distance-path ratio, precision, smoothness, reaction time, joint torques and joint stiffness). For cubic volume, joint torques and the range of motion for most joints, good inter- and intra-rater reliability were found whereas precision, movement time, distance-path ratio and smoothness showed weak to moderate reliability. A comparison with clinical scores revealed good correlations between robot-based joint torques and the Manual Muscle Test. Reaction time and distance-path ratio showed good correlation with the "Graded and Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension" (GRASSP) and the Van Lieshout Test (VLT) for movements towards a predefined position in the center of the frontal plane. In conclusion, the therapy robot ARMin provides a comprehensive set of assessments that are applicable and safe. The first results with spinal cord injured patients and healthy subjects suggest that the measurements are widely reliable and comparable to clinical scales for arm motor function. The methods applied and results can serve as a basis for the future development of end-effector and exoskeleton-based robotic assessments.

Indexed as

RoboticsAdultArmFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMovementRange of Motion, ArticularReproducibility of ResultsSpinal Cord InjuriesTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25996374
PMCPMC4440615
OpenAlexW1483685895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.