Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27634471›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2016

Technology-assisted stroke rehabilitation in Mexico: a pilot randomized trial comparing traditional therapy to circuit training in a Robot/technology-assisted therapy gym.

Karla Bustamante Valles, Sandra Montes, Maria de Jesus Madrigal, Adan Burciaga, María Elena Martínez, Michelle J Johnson

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Circuit class therapy for improving mobility after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Karla Bustamante VallesOrthopaedic and Rehabilitation Engineering Center (OREC), Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Sandra MontesBiomedical Engineering, ITESM, Campus Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico.
Maria de Jesus MadrigalCentro de Rehabilitacion y Educacion Especial, DIF, Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico.
Adan BurciagaCentro de Rehabilitacion y Educacion Especial, DIF, Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico.
María Elena MartínezBiomedical Engineering, ITESM, Campus Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico.
Michelle J JohnsonDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. johnmic@mail.med.upenn.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7964-0304

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke rehabilitation in low- and middle-income countries, such as Mexico, is often hampered by lack of clinical resources and funding. To provide a cost-effective solution for comprehensive post-stroke rehabilitation that can alleviate the need for one-on-one physical or occupational therapy, in lower and upper extremities, we proposed and implemented a technology-assisted rehabilitation gymnasium in Chihuahua, Mexico. The Gymnasium for Robotic Rehabilitation (Robot Gym) consisted of low- and high-tech systems for upper and lower limb rehabilitation. Our hypothesis is that the Robot Gym can provide a cost- and labor-efficient alternative for post-stroke rehabilitation, while being more or as effective as traditional physical and occupational therapy approaches.

methodsA typical group of stroke patients was randomly allocated to an intervention (n = 10) or a control group (n = 10). The intervention group received rehabilitation using the devices in the Robot Gym, whereas the control group (n = 10) received time-matched standard care. All of the study subjects were subjected to 24 two-hour therapy sessions over a period of 6 to 8 weeks. Several clinical assessments tests for upper and lower extremities were used to evaluate motor function pre- and post-intervention. A cost analysis was done to compare the cost effectiveness for both therapies.

resultsNo significant differences were observed when comparing the results of the pre-intervention Mini-mental, Brunnstrom Test, and Geriatric Depression Scale Test, showing that both groups were functionally similar prior to the intervention. Although, both training groups were functionally equivalent, they had a significant age difference. The results of all of the upper extremity tests showed an improvement in function in both groups with no statistically significant differences between the groups. The Fugl-Meyer and the 10 Meters Walk lower extremity tests showed greater improvement in the intervention group compared to the control group. On the Time Up and Go Test, no statistically significant differences were observed pre- and post-intervention when comparing the control and the intervention groups. For the 6 Minute Walk Test, both groups presented a statistically significant difference pre- and post-intervention, showing progress in their performance. The robot gym therapy was more cost-effective than the traditional one-to-one therapy used during this study in that it enabled therapist to train up to 1.5 to 6 times more patients for the approximately same cost in the long term.

conclusionsThe results of this study showed that the patients that received therapy using the Robot Gym had enhanced functionality in the upper extremity tests similar to patients in the control group. In the lower extremity tests, the intervention patients showed more improvement than those subjected to traditional therapy. These results support that the Robot Gym can be as effective as traditional therapy for stroke patients, presenting a more cost- and labor-efficient option for countries with scarce clinical resources and funding.

trial registrationISRCTN98578807 .

Indexed as

Circuit-Based ExerciseRoboticsAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansLower ExtremityMaleMexicoMiddle AgedOccupational TherapyPhysical Therapy ModalitiesPilot ProjectsStroke RehabilitationUpper ExtremityAffordableGlobal HealthLow-and-Middle Income Countries (LMIC)Lower limbRehabilitationRobot therapyStrokeUpper limb

Identifiers

PMID27634471
PMCPMC5025604

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.