Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407580›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021

User-centred assistive SystEm for arm Functions in neUromuscuLar subjects (USEFUL): a randomized controlled study.

Valeria Longatelli, Alberto Antonietti, Emilia Biffi, Eleonora Diella, Maria Grazia D'Angelo, Mauro Rossini, Franco Molteni, Marco Bocciolone, Alessandra Pedrocchi, Marta Gandolla

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03127241 (USEFUL), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

NCT03127241 nacompletednot on this map

USEFUL: User-centred Assistive SystEm for Arm Functions in neUromuscuLar Subjects

TypeinterventionalSponsorPolitecnico di MilanoRan2017 to 2019Enrolled38ConditionsMuscular Dystrophies, Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne, Muscular Dystrophy, Becker, Muscular Dystrophy, Limb-Girdle Type 2ArmsAssistive device (Armon Ayura) test, Assistive device (Jaeco Wrex) test
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Upper limb soft robotic wearable devices: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Valeria LongatelliNeuroEngineering And medical Robotics Laboratory, NearLab, Department of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via Giuseppe Colombo 40, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Alberto AntoniettiNeuroEngineering And medical Robotics Laboratory, NearLab, Department of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via Giuseppe Colombo 40, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Emilia BiffiScientific Institute IRCCS E. Medea, Via Don Luigi Monza 20, 23842, Bosisio Parini, Italy.
Eleonora DiellaScientific Institute IRCCS E. Medea, Via Don Luigi Monza 20, 23842, Bosisio Parini, Italy.
Maria Grazia D'AngeloScientific Institute IRCCS E. Medea, Via Don Luigi Monza 20, 23842, Bosisio Parini, Italy.
Mauro RossiniValduce Hospital, Villa Beretta Rehabilitation Center, Via Nazario Sauro 17, 23845, Costa Masnaga, Italy.
Franco MolteniValduce Hospital, Villa Beretta Rehabilitation Center, Via Nazario Sauro 17, 23845, Costa Masnaga, Italy.
Marco BoccioloneDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via Giuseppe La Masa 1, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Alessandra PedrocchiNeuroEngineering And medical Robotics Laboratory, NearLab, Department of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via Giuseppe Colombo 40, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Marta GandollaNeuroEngineering And medical Robotics Laboratory, NearLab, Department of Electronics, Information, and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Via Giuseppe Colombo 40, 20133, Milan, Italy. marta.gandolla@polimi.it.ORCID 0000-0001-5237-714X
Politecnico di Milano · ITIRCCS Eugenio Medea · ITOspedale Valduce · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUpper limb assistive devices can compensate for muscular weakness and empower the user in the execution of daily activities. Multiple devices have been recently proposed but there is still a lack in the scientific comparison of their efficacy.

methodsWe conducted a cross-over multi-centric randomized controlled trial to assess the functional improvement at the upper limb level of two arms supports on 36 patients with muscular dystrophy. Participants tested a passive device (i.e., Wrex by Jaeco) and a semi-active solution for gravity compensation (i.e., Armon Ayura). We evaluated devices' effectiveness with an externally-assessed scale (i.e., Performance of the Upper Limb-PUL-module), a self-perceived scale (i.e., Abilhand questionnaire), and a usability scale (i.e., System Usability Scale). Friedman's test was used to assess significant functional gain for PUL module and Abilhand questionnaire. Moreover, PUL changes were compared by means of the Friedman's test.

resultsMost of the patients improved upper limb function with the use of arm supports (median PUL scores increase of 1-3 points). However, the effectiveness of each device was related to the level of residual ability of the end-user. Slightly impaired patients maintained the same independence without and with assistive devices, even if they reported reduced muscular fatigue for both devices. Moderately impaired patients enhanced their arm functionality with both devices, and they obtained higher improvements with the semi-active one (median PUL scores increase of 9 points). Finally, severely impaired subjects benefited only from the semi-active device (median PUL scores increase of 12 points). Inadequate strength was recognized as a barrier to passive devices. The usability, measured by the System Usability Scale, was evaluated by end-users "good" (70/100 points) for the passive, and "excellent" (80/100 points) for the semi-active device.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that assistive devices can improve the quality of life of people suffering from muscular dystrophy. The use of passive devices, despite being low cost and easy to use, shows limitations in the efficacy of the assistance to daily tasks, limiting the assistance to a predefined horizontal plane. The addition of one active degree of freedom improves efficacy and usability especially for medium to severe patients. Further investigations are needed to increase the evidence on the effect of arm supports on quality of life and diseases' progression in subjects with degenerative disorders. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03127241, Registered 25th April 2017. The clinical trial was also registered as a post-market study at the Italian Ministry of Health.

Indexed as

Self-Help DevicesAdultCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscular DystrophiesQuality of LifeUpper Extremityassistive deviceExoskeletonneuromuscular disordersupper limb

Identifiers

PMID33407580
PMCPMC7789525
OpenAlexW3118482929

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.