Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30001417›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Effectiveness of robot therapy on body function and structure in people with limited upper limb function: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fernanda Márcia Rodrigues Martins Ferreira, Maria Emília Abreu Chaves, Vinícius Cunha Oliveira, Adriana Maria Valladão Novais Van Petten, Claysson Bruno Santos Vimieiro

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Overview of the role of robots in upper limb disabilities rehabilitation: a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fernanda Márcia Rodrigues Martins FerreiraPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Mecânica, Bioengineering Laboratory, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-1031-7389
Maria Emília Abreu ChavesBioengineering Laboratory, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Vinícius Cunha OliveiraPós-Graduação em Reabilitação e Desempenho Funcional, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Adriana Maria Valladão Novais Van PettenDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Claysson Bruno Santos VimieiroGraduate Program in Mechanical Engineering, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRUniversidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robot-Assisted Therapy (RT) is an innovative approach to neurological rehabilitation that uses intensive, repetitive, interactive, and individualized practice. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness of RT on the body function and structure of people with upper limb impairments (PROSPERO registration: CRD42017054982). A search strategy conducted on seven databases identified randomized controlled studies. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. When possible, the data were pooled, the strength of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system, and the effect sizes were assessed using Cohen coefficient. Subgroup analyses investigated the impact on the estimated effects of the following parameters: methodological quality; portion of the assessed upper limb; duration of stroke; and intervention dose and duration. Thirty-eight studies involving 1174 participants were included. Pooled estimates revealed small effects of RT on motor control and medium effects on strength compared with other intervention (OI) at a short-term follow-up. Standardized differences in means were as follows: 0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) and 0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.8). Effects at other time points and on other investigated outcomes related to body function and structure were not found (p>0.05). The strength of the current evidence was usually low quality. Subgroup analyses suggested that the methodological quality, and duration and dose of RT may influence the estimated effects. In conclusion, RT has small effects on motor control and medium effects on strength in people with limited upper limb function. Poor methodological quality, and lower treatment dose and duration may impact negatively the estimated effects.

Indexed as

RoboticsStroke RehabilitationUpper ExtremityHumansRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID30001417
PMCPMC6042733
OpenAlexW2833241548

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.