ArticleJournal of neurotrauma2016
Robotic Rehabilitator of the Rodent Upper Extremity: A System and Method for Assessing and Training Forelimb Force Production after Neurological Injury.
Article in Journal of neurotrauma, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative review of machine learning as promising revolution in clinical practice of scoliosis.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- When Spinal Neuromodulation Meets Sensorimotor Rehabilitation: Lessons Learned From Animal Models to Regain Manual Dexterity After a Spinal Cord Injury.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2021Review
- Translational Challenges of Rat Models of Upper Extremity Dysfunction After Spinal Cord Injury.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2018Review
- Investigating Motor Skill Learning Processes with a Robotic Manipulandum.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2017Article
- Neuroplastic Changes Following Brain Ischemia and their Contribution to Stroke Recovery: Novel Approaches in Neurorehabilitation.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rodent models of spinal cord injury are critical for the development of treatments for upper limb motor impairment in humans, but there are few methods for measuring forelimb strength of rodents, an important outcome measure. We developed a novel robotic device--the Robotic Rehabilitator of the Rodent Upper Extremity (RUE)--that requires rats to voluntarily reach for and pull a bar to retrieve a food reward; the resistance of the bar can be programmed. We used RUE to train forelimb strength of 16 rats three times per week for 23 weeks before and 38 weeks after a mild (100 kdyne) unilateral contusion at the cervical level 5 (C5). We measured maximum force produced when RUE movement was unexpectedly blocked. We compared this blocked pulling force (BPF) to weekly measures of forelimb strength obtained with a previous, well-established method: the grip strength meter (GSM). Before injury, BPF was 2.6 times higher (BPF, 444.6 ± 19.1 g; GSM, 168.4 ± 3.1 g) and 4.9 times more variable (p < 0.001) than pulling force measured with the GSM; the two measurement methods were uncorrelated (R(2) = 0.03; p = 0.84). After injury, there was a significant decrease in BPF of 134.35 g ± 14.71 g (p < 0.001). Together, our findings document BPF as a repeatable measure of forelimb force production, sensitive to a mild spinal cord injury, which comes closer to measuring maximum force than the GSM and thus may provide a useful measure for quantifying the effects of treatment in rodent models of SCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.