Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30068372›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2018

Using an upper extremity exoskeleton for semi-autonomous exercise during inpatient neurological rehabilitation- a pilot study.

Imke Büsching, Aida Sehle, Jana Stürner, Joachim Liepert

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. [Research progress on elbow joint rehabilitation robots].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Imke BüschingDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Zum Tafelholz 8, D- 78476, Allensbach, Germany.
Aida SehleDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Zum Tafelholz 8, D- 78476, Allensbach, Germany.
Jana StürnerDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Zum Tafelholz 8, D- 78476, Allensbach, Germany.
Joachim LiepertDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, Kliniken Schmieder, Zum Tafelholz 8, D- 78476, Allensbach, Germany. j.liepert@kliniken-schmieder.de.ORCID 0000-0002-3430-7372
Kliniken Schmieder · DEBellikon Rehabilitation Clinic · CH

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMotor deficits are the most common symptoms after stroke. There is some evidence that intensity and amount of exercises influence the degree of improvement of functions within the first 6 months after the injury. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptance of semi-autonomous exercises with an upper extremity exoskeleton in addition to an inpatient rehabilitation program. In addition, changes of motor functions were examined.

methodsTen stroke patients with a severe upper extremity paresis were included. They were offered to perform a semi-autonomous training with a gravity-supported, computer-enhanced device (Armeo®Spring, Hocoma AG) six times per week for 4 weeks. Feasibility was evaluated by weekly structured interviews with patients and supervisors. Motor functions were assessed before and after the training period using the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT). The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used for assessing pre-post differences. The Pearson correlation co-efficient was used for correlating the number of completed sessions with the change in motor function. Acceptance of the device and the level of satisfaction with the training were determined by a questionnaire based on visual analogue scales.

resultsNeither patients nor supervisors reported side effects. However, one patient had to be excluded from analysis because of transportation difficulties from the ward to the treatment facility. Therefore, analysis was based on nine patients. On average, 13.2 (55%) sessions were realized. WMFT results showed significant improvements of proximal arm functions. The number of sessions correlated with the degree of shoulder force improvement. Patients rated the exercises to be motivating, and enjoyable and would continue using the Armeo®Spring at home if they had the opportunity.

conclusionUsing an upper extremity exoskeleton for semi-autonomous training in an inpatient setting is feasible without side effects and is positively rated by the patients. It might further support the recovery of upper extremity function.

trial registrationThe trial was retrospectively registered. Registration number ISRCTN42633681 .

Indexed as

Exoskeleton DeviceAdultAgedExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedParesisPilot ProjectsRecovery of FunctionStroke RehabilitationAdditional trainingInpatient rehabilitationRobot-assisted upper limb trainingSevere arm paresisStrokeVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID30068372
PMCPMC6090973
OpenAlexW2887213696

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.