Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34328803›Full record

ArticleDisability and rehabilitation2022

The use of wearable sensors to assess and treat the upper extremity after stroke: a scoping review.

Grace J Kim, Avinash Parnandi, Sharon Eva, Heidi Schambra

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Disability and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effect of practice on the control of reach extent.Experimental brain research · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Grace J KimDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, New York University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3915-0754
Avinash ParnandiDepartment of Neurology, NYU Langone Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Sharon EvaDepartment of Occupational Therapy, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
Heidi SchambraDepartment of Neurology, NYU Langone Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Corticoreticulospinal Tract Reorganization After StrokeR01NS110696 · NINDS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI SCHAMBRA, HEIDI · 2019 to 2023
$3.2M
Quantitative Rehabilitation after StrokeK02NS104207 · NINDS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI SCHAMBRA, HEIDI · 2017 to 2021
$1.1M
Learning invariant representation from high- dimensional data for quantitative stroke reha R01LM013316 · NLM · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI FERNANDEZ-GRANDA, CARLOS, SCHAMBRA, HEIDI · 2019 to 2022
$900k
NINDS NIH HHS K02 NS104207NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS110696NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013316
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo address the gap in the literature and clarify the expanding role of wearable sensor data in stroke rehabilitation, we summarized the methods for upper extremity (UE) sensor-based assessment and sensor-based treatment. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe guideline outlined by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews was used to complete this scoping review. Information pertaining to participant demographics, sensory information, data collection, data processing, data analysis, and study results were extracted from the studies for analysis and synthesis.

resultsWe included 43 articles in the final review. We organized the results into assessment and treatment categories. The included articles used wearable sensors to identify UE functional motion, categorize motor impairment/activity limitation, and quantify real-world use. Wearable sensors were also used to augment UE training by triggering sensory cues or providing instructional feedback about the affected UE.

conclusionsSensors have the potential to greatly expand assessment and treatment beyond traditional clinic-based approaches. This capability could support the quantification of rehabilitation dose, the nuanced assessment of impairment and activity limitation, the characterization of daily UE use patterns in real-world settings, and augment UE training adherence for home-based rehabilitation.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONSensor data have been used to assess UE functional motion, motor impairment/activity limitation, and real-world use.Sensor-assisted treatment approaches are emerging, and may be a promising tool to augment UE adherence in home-based rehabilitation.Wearable sensors may extend our ability to objectively assess UE motion beyond supervised clinical settings, and into home and community settings.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationWearable Electronic DevicesHumansUpper ExtremityaccelerometersIMUsensor-assisted treatmentsensor-based assessmentstrokeupper extremityWearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID34328803
PMCPMC9912423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.