Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35089447›Full record

SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2022

Robot-assisted distal training improves upper limb dexterity and function after stroke: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Menglu Zhao, Guangning Wang, Aimin Wang, Ling Jie Cheng, Ying Lau

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Menglu ZhaoThe Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Shandong, Qingdao, China.
Guangning WangQingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7872-9393
Aimin WangSchool of Nursing, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Ling Jie ChengHealth Systems and Behavioural Sciences Domain, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5338-578X
Ying LauAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Level 2, Block MD11, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117597, Singapore. nurly@nus.edu.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8289-3441
Qingdao University · CNNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionStroke is one of the top 10 causes of death worldwide, and more than half of stroke patients face distal upper extremity dysfunction. Considering that robot-assisted training may be effective in improving distal upper extremity function, the review evaluated the effect of robot-assisted distal training on motor function, hand dexterity, and spasticity after stroke.

methodsEleven databases were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception until Aug 28, 2021. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed to investigate the overall effect and source of heterogeneity, respectively.

resultsTwenty-two trials involving 758 participants were included in this systematic review. The overall effect of robot-assisted distal training on the motor function of the wrists and hands was significant improvement (MD = 3.92; 95% CI, 3.04-4.80; P < 0.001). The robot-assisted training had a significantly beneficial effect on other motor functions (MD = 2.84; 95% CI, 1.54-4.14; P < 0.001); dexterity (MD = 9.01; 95% CI, -12.07--5.95; P < 0.001), spasticity, upper extremity strength (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.07-0.78; P = 0.02) and activities of daily living (SMD = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.29-1.23; P < 0.001). A series of subgroup analyses showed preferable design and effective regime of training. Meta-regression indicated the statistically significant effect of the year of trial, country, and duration on the effectiveness of training.

conclusionRobot-assisted distal training has a significant effect on motor function, dexterity and spasticity of the upper extremity, compared to conventional therapy.

Indexed as

RoboticsStrokeStroke RehabilitationActivities of Daily LivingHumansRecovery of FunctionUpper ExtremityMeta-analysisMeta-regressionRobot-assisted distal trainingStrokeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35089447
OpenAlexW4210434825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.