Trial reportPloS one2017
Is two better than one? Muscle vibration plus robotic rehabilitation to improve upper limb spasticity and function: A pilot randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Can Upper Limb Robotic Rehabilitation Plus Muscle Vibration Improve Motor Function? A Pilot Study
Effects of Bilateral Upper Limb Robot-assisted Rehabilitation on Motor Recovery in Patients With Subacute Stroke: an Italian Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Efficacy of Focal Vibrational Therapy in Reducing Post-stroke Shoulder Pain: a Double-blind, Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of vibration therapy on physical function, activity and participation in people with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Robot-Assisted Upper-Limb Rehabilitation After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cortical Reorganization and Neuroplasticity Biomarkers.Neural plasticity · 2026Pooled it
- Upper extremity function and disability recovery with vibration therapy after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- Robot-Aided Systems for Improving the Assessment of Upper Limb Spasticity: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Pooled it
- A pilot study of peripheral magnetic stimulation combined with physical therapy for motor function in early acute stroke survivors with sensory ataxic hemiparesis.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Focal Muscular Vibration During Intensive Rehabilitation in the Treatment of Spasticity After a Severe Acquired Brain Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring the Impact of Muscle Vibration Therapy in Neurologic Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Review
- Current Status and Future Aspect of Digital Health Innovation in Stroke Prevention and Management.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2025Review
- Multimodal machine learning to predict response to ultrasound-guided botulinum and vibration therapy in muscle spasticity a clinical and imaging correlation study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Focal mechanical vibration motor effects on the finger tapping in healthy volunteers.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Protocolized strategies to encourage early mobilization of critical care patients: challenges and success.Critical care science · 2025Review
- Focal Vibration Therapy for Motor Deficits and Spasticity Management in Post-Stroke Rehabilitation.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- Focal muscle vibration and action observation: a combined approach for muscle strengthening.European journal of translational myology · 2024Article
- Integrating Machine Learning with Robotic Rehabilitation May Support Prediction of Recovery of the Upper Limb Motor Function in Stroke Survivors.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Enhancing touch sensibility with sensory electrical stimulation and sensory retraining.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Comparison of Immediate Neuromodulatory Effects between Focal Vibratory and Electrical Sensory Stimulations after Stroke.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Therapeutic robots for post-stroke rehabilitation.Medical review (2021) · 2024Review
- Corticospinal tract: a new hope for the treatment of post-stroke spasticity.Acta neurologica Belgica · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Even though robotic rehabilitation is very useful to improve motor function, there is no conclusive evidence on its role in reducing post-stroke spasticity. Focal muscle vibration (MV) is instead very useful to reduce segmental spasticity, with a consequent positive effect on motor function. Therefore, it could be possible to strengthen the effects of robotic rehabilitation by coupling MV. To this end, we designed a pilot randomized controlled trial (Clinical Trial NCT03110718) that included twenty patients suffering from unilateral post-stroke upper limb spasticity. Patients underwent 40 daily sessions of Armeo-Power training (1 hour/session, 5 sessions/week, for 8 weeks) with or without spastic antagonist MV. They were randomized into two groups of 10 individuals, which received (group-A) or not (group-B) MV. The intensity of MV, represented by the peak acceleration (a-peak), was calculated by the formula (2πf)2A, where f is the frequency of MV and A is the amplitude. Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), short intracortical inhibition (SICI), and Hmax/Mmax ratio (HMR) were the primary outcomes measured before and after (immediately and 4 weeks later) the end of the treatment. In all patients of group-A, we observed a greater reduction of MAS (p = 0.007, d = 0.6) and HMR (p<0.001, d = 0.7), and a more evident increase of SICI (p<0.001, d = 0.7) up to 4 weeks after the end of the treatment, as compared to group-B. Likewise, group-A showed a greater function outcome of upper limb (Functional Independence Measure p = 0.1, d = 0.7; Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity p = 0.007, d = 0.4) up to 4 weeks after the end of the treatment. A significant correlation was found between the degree of MAS reduction and SICI increase in the agonist spastic muscles (p = 0.004). Our data show that this combined rehabilitative approach could be a promising option in improving upper limb spasticity and motor function. We could hypothesize that the greater rehabilitative outcome improvement may depend on a reshape of corticospinal plasticity induced by a sort of associative plasticity between Armeo-Power and MV.
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.