Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33072397›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2020

Contextual interference in children with brain lesions: protocol of a pilot study investigating blocked vs. random practice order of an upper limb robotic exergame.

Judith V Graser, Caroline H G Bastiaenen, Urs Keller, Hubertus J A van Hedel

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02443857 (Feasibility of a New Pediatric Arm Rehabilitation Robot ChARMin), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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.

NCT02443857 nacompletednot on this map

Feasibility of a New Pediatric Arm Rehabilitation Robot ChARMin: A Monocentric Interventional Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorHuub van HedelRan2015 to 2025Enrolled63ConditionsNervous System DiseasesArmsChARMin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Judith V GraserResearch Department, Swiss Children's Rehab, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Mühlebergstrasse 104, 8910 Affoltern am Albis, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9921-8581
Caroline H G BastiaenenResearch Group Function, Participation and Rehabilitation CAPHRI, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Urs KellerResearch Department, Swiss Children's Rehab, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Mühlebergstrasse 104, 8910 Affoltern am Albis, Switzerland.
Hubertus J A van HedelResearch Department, Swiss Children's Rehab, University Children's Hospital Zurich, Mühlebergstrasse 104, 8910 Affoltern am Albis, Switzerland.
Maastricht University · NLUniversity Children's Hospital Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIf adults practice several motor tasks together, random practice leads to better transfer and retention compared to blocked practice. Knowledge about this contextual interference (CI) effect could be valuable to improve neurorehabilitation of children. We present the protocol of a randomised controlled pilot study investigating the feasibility of blocked practice vs. random practice of robot-assisted upper limb reaching in children with brain lesions undergoing neurorehabilitation.

methodsChildren with affected upper limb function due to congenital or acquired brain lesions undergoing neurorehabilitation will be recruited for a randomised controlled pilot study with a 3-week procedure. In the control week (1), two assessment blocks (robot-assisted reaching tasks, Melbourne assessment 2, subscale fluency), 2 days apart, take place. In the practice week (2), participants are randomly allocated to blocked practice or random practice and perform 480 reaching and backward movements in the horizontal and vertical plane using exergaming with an exoskeleton robot per day during three consecutive days. Assessments are performed before, directly after and 1 day after the practice sessions. In the follow-up week (3), participants perform the assessments 1 week after the final practice session. The primary outcome is the immediate transfer of the Melbourne Assessment 2, subscale fluency. Secondary outcomes are the immediate retention, 1-day and 1-week delayed transfer and retention and acquisition during the practice sessions. We will evaluate the feasibility of the inclusion criteria, the recruitment rate, the scheduling procedure, the randomisation procedure, the procedure for the participants, the handling of the robot, the handling of the amount of data, the choice of the outcome measures and the influence of other therapies. Furthermore, we will perform a power calculation using the data to estimate the sample size for the main trial. DISCUSSION: The protocol of the pilot study is a first step towards a future main randomised controlled trial. This low risk pilot study might induce some benefits for the participants. However, we need to place its results into perspective, especially concerning the generalisability, as it remains questionable whether improving reaching constrained within a robotic device will ameliorate daily life reaching tasks.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02443857.

Indexed as

Contextual interferenceMotor learningPaediatric neurorehabilitationPractice order

Identifiers

PMID33072397
PMCPMC7560185
OpenAlexW4239066899

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.