Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28018979›Full record

ArticleAustin journal of cerebrovascular disease & stroke2016

Increasing Access to Cost Effective Home-Based Rehabilitation for Rural Veteran Stroke Survivors.

S N Housley, A R Garlow, K Ducote, A Howard, T Thomas, D Wu, K Richards, A J Butler

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in Austin journal of cerebrovascular disease & stroke, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Home-Based Gait Interventions for Adults with Stroke: A Scoping Review.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025
    Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Repurposing an EMG Biofeedback Device for Gait Rehabilitation: Development, Validity and Reliability.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S N HousleyDepartment of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, USA.
A R GarlowDepartment of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, USA.
K DucoteDepartment of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, USA.
A HowardDepartment of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, USA.
T ThomasDepartment of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, USA.
D WuDepartment of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, USA.
K RichardsDepartment of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, USA.
A J ButlerDepartment of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, USA; Department of Veteran's Affairs, Atlanta Rehabilitation Research and Development Center of Excellence, USA; Neuroscience Institute, Joint Center for Advanced Brain Imaging, Center for Behavioral Neuroscience, Georgia State University, USA.
Georgia State University · US

Funding

Intramural VA VA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAn estimated 750,000 Americans experience a stroke annually. Most stroke survivors require rehabilitation. Limited access to rehabilitation facilities has a pronounced burden on functional outcomes and quality of life. Robotic devices deliver reproducible therapy without the need for real-time human oversight. This study examined the efficacy of using home-based, telerobotic-assisted devices (Hand and Foot Mentor: HM and FM) to improve functional ability and reduce depression symptoms, while improving access and cost savings associated with rehabilitation.

methodsTwenty stroke survivors performed three months of home-based rehabilitation using a robotic device, while a therapist remotely monitored progress. Baseline and end of treatment function and depression symptoms were assessed. Satisfaction with the device and access to therapy were determined using qualitative surveys. Cost analysis was performed to compare home-based, robotic-assisted therapy to clinic-based physical therapy.

resultsCompared to baseline, significant improvement in upper extremity function (30.06%, p= 0.046), clinically significant benefits in gait speed (29.03%), moderate improvement in depressive symptoms (28.44%) and modest improvement in distance walked (30.2%) were observed. Participants indicated satisfaction with the device. Home-based robot therapy expanded access to post-stroke rehabilitation for 35% of the people no longer receiving formal services and increased daily access for the remaining 65%, with a cost savings of $2,352 (64.97%) compared to clinic-based therapy.

conclusionStroke survivors made significant clinically meaningful improvements in the use of their impaired extremities using a robotic device in the home. Home-based, robotic therapy reduced costs, while expanding access to a rehabilitation modality for people who would not otherwise have received care.

Indexed as

Home-basedRuralStrokeTelerehabilitationVeterans

Identifiers

PMID28018979
PMCPMC5175468
OpenAlexW2562331266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.