ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2021
Comparative Assessment of Robotic versus Classical Physical Therapy Using Muscle Strength and Ranges of Motion Testing in Neurological Diseases.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-stroke lower limb rehabilitation: a comparative study between exoskeleton robots and traditional gait training.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Technical Validation of a Multimodal Cognitive-Haptic Sudoku Platform Under Simulated Tremor Conditions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Passive Movement During Robot-Assisted and Therapist-Led Rehabilitation Exercises.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- A Sensor-Based Classification for Neuromotor Robot-Assisted Rehabilitation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- Integration of music-based game approaches with wearable devices for hand neurorehabilitation: a narrative review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Review
- The Efficacity of the NeuroAssist Robotic System for Motor Rehabilitation of the Upper Limb-Promising Results from a Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Personalized Approaches to Stroke: One Step Forward for Functional Recovery of Stroke Patients.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the EasyForce Dynamometer for Assessment of Maximal Shoulder, Knee and Hip Strength.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Virtual Reality and Physiotherapy in Post-Stroke Functional Re-Education of the Lower Extremity: A Controlled Clinical Trial on a New Approach.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The use of robotic systems in physical rehabilitation protocols has become increasingly attractive and has been given more focus in the last decade as a result of the high prevalence of motor deficits in the population, which is linked to an overburdened healthcare system. In accordance with current trends, three robotic devices have been designed, called ParReEx Elbow, ParReEx Wrist, and ASPIRE, which were designed to improve upper-limb medical recovery (shoulder, elbow, forearm, and wrist). The three automated systems were tested in a hospital setting with 23 patients (12 men and 11 women) suffering from motor deficits caused by various neurological diseases such as stroke, Parkinson's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The patients were divided into three groups based on their pathology (vascular, extrapyramidal, and neuromuscular). Objective clinical measures, such as the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale, goniometry, and dynamometry, were used to compare pre- and post-rehabilitation assessments for both robotic-aided and manual physical rehabilitation therapy. The results of these tests showed that, with the exception of a few minor differences in muscular strength recovery, the robotic-assisted rehabilitation methods performed equally as well as the manual techniques, though only minor improvements were validated during short-term rehabilitation. The greatest achievements were obtained in the goniometric analysis where some rehabilitation amplitudes increased by over 40% in the vascular group, but the same analysis returned regressions in the neuromuscular group. The MRC scale analysis returned no significant differences, with most regressions occurring in the neuromuscular group. The dynamometric analysis mostly returned improvements, but the highest value evolution was 19.07%, which also in the vascular group. While the results were encouraging, more research is needed with a larger sample size and a longer study period in order to provide more information regarding the efficacy of both rehabilitation methods in neurological illnesses.
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.