Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35216603›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2022

Impact of the robotic-assistance level on upper extremity function in stroke patients receiving adjunct robotic rehabilitation: sub-analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

Takashi Takebayashi, Kayoko Takahashi, Yuho Okita, Hironobu Kubo, Kenji Hachisuka, Kazuhisa Domen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Takashi TakebayashiDepartment of Occupational Therapy, School of Comprehensive Rehabilitation, College of Health and Human Sciences, Osaka Prefecture University, 3-7-30, Habikino, Osaka, 583-8555, Japan. takshi77@rehab.osakafu-u.ac.jp.
Kayoko TakahashiDepartment of Occupational Therapy, School of Allied Health Science, Kitasato University, Kanagawa, Japan.
Yuho OkitaFaculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Hironobu KuboDepartment of Medical Science, Teijin Parma Limited, Tokyo, Japan.
Kenji HachisukaMoji Medical Center, Fukuoka, Japan.
Kazuhisa DomenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobotic therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in treating upper extremity (UE) paresis in stroke survivors. However, it remains unclear whether the level of assistance provided by robotics in UE training could affect the improvement in UE function in stroke survivors. We aimed to exploratorily investigate the impact of robotic assistance level and modes of adjustment on functional improvement in a stroke-affected UE.

methodsWe analyzed the data of 30 subacute stroke survivors with mild-to-severe UE hemiplegia who were randomly assigned to the robotic therapy (using ReoGo System) group in our previous randomized clinical trial. A cluster analysis based on the training results (the percentage of each stroke patient's five assistance modes of robotics used during the training) was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: high and low robotic assistance groups. Additionally, the two groups were sub-categorized into the following classes based on the severity of UE functional impairment: moderate-to-mild [Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) score ≥ 30] and severe-to-moderate class (FMA < 30). The outcomes were assessed using FMA, FMA-proximal, performance-time in the Wolf motor function test (WMFT), and functional assessment scale (FAS) in WMFT. The outcomes of each class in the two groups were analyzed. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with robot assistance level and severity of UE function as explanatory factors and the change in each outcome pre- and post-intervention as the objective factor.

resultsOverall, significant differences of the group × severity interaction were found in most of the outcomes, including FMA-proximal (p = 0.038, η

conclusionAn optimal amount of robotic assistance is a key to maximize improvement in post-stroke UE paralysis. Furthermore, severity of UE paralysis is an important consideration when deciding the amount of assistance in robotic therapy. Trial registration Trial enrollment was done at UMIN (UMIN 000001619, registration date was January 1, 2009).

Indexed as

RoboticsStroke RehabilitationHumansParesisRecovery of FunctionTreatment OutcomeUpper ExtremityOccupational therapyRoboticsStroke

Identifiers

PMID35216603
PMCPMC8881821

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.