Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35627855›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

The Impact of Robotic Therapy on the Self-Perception of Upper Limb Function in Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

V Lozano-Berrio, M Alcobendas-Maestro, B Polonio-López, A Gil-Agudo, A de la Peña-González, A de Los Reyes-Guzmán

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

V Lozano-BerrioBiomechanics and Technical Aids Department, National Hospital for Spinal Cord Injury, 45004 Toledo, Spain.
M Alcobendas-MaestroBiomechanics and Technical Aids Department, National Hospital for Spinal Cord Injury, 45004 Toledo, Spain.
B Polonio-LópezTechnological Innovation Applied to Health Research Group (ITAS), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 45600 Talavera de la Reina, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2922-7519
A Gil-AgudoBiomechanics and Technical Aids Department, National Hospital for Spinal Cord Injury, 45004 Toledo, Spain.
A de la Peña-GonzálezOccupational Therapy Unit, National Hospital for Spinal Cord Injury, 45004 Toledo, Spain.
A de Los Reyes-GuzmánBiomechanics and Technical Aids Department, National Hospital for Spinal Cord Injury, 45004 Toledo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2905-2405
Hospital Nacional de Parapléjicos · ESUniversity of Castilla-La Mancha · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of robotic therapy in patients with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI), measured on the basis of the patients' self-perception of limited upper limb function and level of independence in activities of daily living.

methodsTwenty-six patients with cervical SCI completed the treatment after being randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. The training consisted of 40 experimental sessions 1 h in duration, ideally occurring 5 days/week for 8 weeks. In addition to the conventional daily therapy (30 min), the control group received another 30 min of conventional therapy, whereas the intervention group received 30 min of robotic therapy. Patients were evaluated by means of the Capabilities of Upper Extremity Questionnaire (CUE) and Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) clinical scales.

resultsThe improvement in the feeding item of SCIM was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group after the treatment (2.00 (0.91) vs. 1.18 (0.89),

conclusionsAlthough both groups improved, the clinical relevance related to the changes observed for both assessments was slightly higher in the intervention group than in the control group.

Indexed as

Cervical CordNeck InjuriesRobotic Surgical ProceduresSpinal Cord InjuriesActivities of Daily LivingHumansPilot ProjectsSelf ConceptUpper Extremityactivities of daily livingexoskeletonrobot-assisted therapyself-perceptionspinal cord injuryupper limb

Identifiers

PMID35627855
PMCPMC9141118
OpenAlexW4281384125

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.