Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29391492›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2018

Comparison of proximal versus distal upper-limb robotic rehabilitation on motor performance after stroke: a cluster controlled trial.

Yu-Wei Hsieh, Keh-Chung Lin, Ching-Yi Wu, Tsai-Yu Shih, Ming-Wei Li, Chia-Ling Chen

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Robot-assisted distal training improves upper limb dexterity and function after stroke: a systematic review and meta-regression.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Yu-Wei HsiehDepartment of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Institute of Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Keh-Chung LinSchool of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ching-Yi WuDepartment of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Institute of Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. cywu@mail.cgu.edu.tw.
Tsai-Yu ShihDepartment of Occupational Therapy and Graduate Institute of Behavioral Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Ming-Wei LiDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Sijhih Cathay General Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Chia-Ling ChenDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examined the treatment efficacy of proximal-emphasized robotic rehabilitation by using the InMotion ARM (P-IMT) versus distal-emphasized robotic rehabilitation by using the InMotion WRIST (D-IMT) in patients with stroke. A total of 40 patients with stroke completed the study. They received P-IMT, D-IMT, or control treatment (CT) for 20 training sessions. Primary outcomes were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. Secondary outcomes were the Motor Activity Log (MAL) and wrist-worn accelerometers. The differences on the distal FMA, total MRC, distal MRC, and MAL quality of movement scores among the 3 groups were statistically significant (P = 0.02 to 0.05). Post hoc comparisons revealed that the D-IMT group significantly improved more than the P-IMT group on the total MRC and distal MRC. Furthermore, the distal FMA and distal MRC improved more in the D-IMT group than in the CT group. Our findings suggest that distal upper-limb robotic rehabilitation using the InMotion WRIST system had superior effects on distal muscle strength. Further research based on a larger sample is needed to confirm long-term treatment effects of proximal versus distal upper-limb robotic rehabilitation.

Indexed as

RoboticsAdultExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle StrengthRecovery of FunctionStrokeStroke RehabilitationTreatment OutcomeUpper Extremity

Identifiers

PMID29391492
PMCPMC5794971

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.