ReviewRehabilitation process and outcome2020
Tools and Techniques Used With Robotic Devices to Quantify Upper-Limb Function in Typically Developing Children: A Systematic Review.
Review in Rehabilitation process and outcome, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Lower Limb Exoskeletons as an Assessment Tool for Human Motor Performance: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Non-Linear Modeling of Motor Development in Typically Developing Children and Youth Aged 5-18 Years Using Robot-Based Behavioral Assessments.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- In-depth quantification of bimanual coordination using the Kinarm exoskeleton robot in children with unilateral cerebral palsy.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Implementing Virtual Care in Neurology - Challenges and Pitfalls.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic devices have been used to quantify function, identify impairment, and rehabilitate motor function extensively in adults, but less-so in younger populations. The ability to perform motor actions improves as children grow. It is important to quantify this rate of change of the neurotypical population before attempting to identify impairment and target rehabilitation techniques.
objectivesFor a population of typically developing children, this systematic review identifies and analyzes tools and techniques used with robotic devices to quantify upper-limb motor function. Since most of the papers also used robotic devices to compare function of neurotypical to pathological populations, a secondary objective was introduced to relate clinical outcome measures to identified robotic tools and techniques.
methodsFive databases were searched between February 2019 and August 2020, and 226 articles were found, 19 of which are included in the review.
resultsRobotic devices, tasks, outcome measures, and clinical assessments were not consistent among studies from different settings but were consistent within laboratory groups. Fifteen of the 19 articles evaluated both typically developing and pathological populations.
conclusionTo optimize universally comparable outcomes in future work, it is recommended that a standard set of tasks and measures is used to assess upper-limb motor function. Standardized tasks and measures will facilitate effective rehabilitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.