Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29764799›Full record

ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2018

Perceptions of Existing Wearable Robotic Devices for Upper Extremity and Suggestions for Their Development: Findings From Therapists and People With Stroke.

Ahmed Elnady, W Ben Mortenson, Carlo Menon

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05315089 (Effects and Perception of Intensive Virtual Reality Training on Upper Limb Functions After Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT05315089 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Effects and Perception of Intensive Virtual Reality Training on Upper Limb Functions After Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2022 to 2022Enrolled40ConditionsStrokeArmsVirtual reality games +conventional exercises, Conventional exercises
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Design of a Wearable Vibrotactile Stimulation Device for Individuals With Upper-Limb Hemiparesis and Spasticity.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

Ahmed Elnady *Menrva Research Group, School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6337-6588
W Ben Mortenson *Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0183-6163
Carlo Menon *Menrva Research Group, School of Mechatronic Systems and Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2309-9977

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in wearable robotic technologies have increased the potential of these devices for rehabilitation and as assistive devices. However, the utilization of these devices is still limited and there are questions regarding how well these devices address users' (therapists and patients) needs.

objectiveThe aims of this study were to (1) describe users' perceptions about existing wearable robotic devices for the upper extremity; (2) identify if there is a need to develop new devices for the upper extremity and the desired features; and (3) explore obstacles that would influence the utilization of these new devices.

methodsFocus groups were held to collect data. Data were analyzed thematically.

resultsA total of 16 participants took part in the focus group discussions. Our analysis identified three main themes: (1) "They exist, but..." described participants' perceptions about existing devices for upper extremity; (2) "Indeed, we need more, can we have it all?" reflected participants' desire to have new devices for the upper extremity and revealed heterogeneity among different participants; and (3) "Bumps on the road" identified challenges that the participants felt needed to be taken into consideration during the development of these devices.

conclusionsThis study resonates with previous research that has highlighted the importance of involving end users in the design process. The study suggests that having a single solution for stroke rehabilitation or assistance could be challenging or even impossible, and thus, engineers should clearly identify the targeted stroke population needs before the design of any device for the upper extremity.

Indexed as

focus groupqualitative researchrehabilitationupper extremitywearable devices

Identifiers

PMID29764799
PMCPMC5974461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.