Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35148805›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2022

The diagnostic levels of evidence of instrumented devices for measuring viscoelastic joint properties and spasticity; a systematic review.

Levinia Lara van der Velden, Maaike Anna Catharina de Koff, Gerard Maria Ribbers, Ruud Willem Selles

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Technology-assisted assessment of spasticity: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Levinia Lara van der VeldenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. l.vandervelden@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-0352-8233
Maaike Anna Catharina de KoffRijndam Rehabilitation, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gerard Maria RibbersDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6114-349X
Ruud Willem SellesDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2432-6756
Codarts Rotterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany diagnostic robotic devices have been developed to quantify viscoelastic properties and spasticity of patients with upper motor neuron lesions. However, in clinical practice, subjective and nonvalid clinical scales are still commonly used. To understand the limited use of diagnostic robotic devices assessing viscoelastic joint properties and spasticity in clinical practice, we evaluate the diagnostic level of evidence of studies on these devices.

methodA systematic literature review was performed using multiple databases. Two of the authors independently screened all articles. Studies investigating human subjects diagnosed with stroke or cerebral palsy, measured with a mechanical device to assess viscoelastic joint properties and/or spasticity of an extremity. All articles were assigned a diagnostic level of evidence, which was established with a classification strategy based on the number of participants and the design of the study, from a Level 0 (less than 10 subjects) to a Level IV, reporting the long-term clinical consequences in daily care.

resultsFifty-nine articles were included. Most studies measured the upper limb (64%) in stroke patients (81%). The highest level of evidence found was Level IIa (53%); these studies correlated the test values of the robotic device with a clinical test or within subgroups. Level 0 (30%) and Level I (17%; determining the range of values of the robotic test) were also common. None of the studies tested their device for diagnostic accuracy (Level III), clinical added value (Level IV).

conclusionThe diagnostic evidence needed for implementing robotic devices in clinical practice is lacking. Our findings indicate that more effort should be invested in studying diagnostic accuracy (Level III) or added value for clinical care (Level IV); only these studies can provide clinicians with evidence that robotic devices have added value above the currently-used clinical scales.

Indexed as

RoboticsStrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansMuscle SpasticityUpper ExtremityCerebral palsyClinical added valueRoboticSpasticityStrokeViscoelastic joint properties

Identifiers

PMID35148805
PMCPMC8832664
OpenAlexW4211234747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.