Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35666491›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2022

New technologies promoting active upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: an overview and network meta-analysis.

Gauthier Everard, Louise Declerck, Christine Detrembleur, Sophie Leonard, Glenn Bower, Stéphanie Dehem, Thierry Lejeune

Open access · diamondAbstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Quo Vadis, Amadeo Hand Robot? A Randomized Study with a Hand Recovery Predictive Model in Subacute Stroke.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gauthier EverardSection of Health Sciences, Neuro Musculo Skeletal Lab (NMSK), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Research, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Louise DeclerckSection of Health Sciences, Neuro Musculo Skeletal Lab (NMSK), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Research, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Christine DetrembleurSection of Health Sciences, Neuro Musculo Skeletal Lab (NMSK), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Research, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Sophie LeonardSection of Health Sciences, Neuro Musculo Skeletal Lab (NMSK), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Research, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Glenn BowerSection of Health Sciences, Neuro Musculo Skeletal Lab (NMSK), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Research, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Stéphanie DehemSection of Health Sciences, Neuro Musculo Skeletal Lab (NMSK), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Research, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Thierry LejeuneSection of Health Sciences, Neuro Musculo Skeletal Lab (NMSK), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Research, Catholic University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium - thierry.lejeune@uclouvain.be.
UCLouvain · BECliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe primary aim of this work was to summarize and compare the effects of active rehabilitation assisted by new technologies (virtual reality [VR], robot-assisted therapy [RAT] and telerehabilitation [TR)) on upper limb motor function and everyday living activity during the subacute and chronic phases of stroke. The secondary aims were to compare the effects of these technologies according to the intervention design (in addition to or in substitution of conventional therapy), the duration of active rehabilitation and the severity of patients' motor impairments. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Several databases, namely PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane Library, were searched. Studies were included if they were meta-analyses with a moderate to high level of confidence (assessed with AMSTAR-2) that compared the effects of a new technology promoting active rehabilitation to that of a conventional therapy program among patients with stroke. Network meta-analyses were conducted to compare the effects of the new technologies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen different meta-analyses were selected and fifteen included in the quantitative analysis. In total these 15 meta-analyses were based on 189 different randomized controlled trials. VR (SMD≥0.25; P<0.05), RAT (SMD≥0.29; P≤0.29) and TR (SMD≥-0.08; P≤0.64) were found to be at least as effective as conventional therapy. During the subacute phase, RAT's greatest effect was observed for patients with severe-moderate impairments whereas VR and TR's greatest effects were observed for patients with mild impairments. During the chronic phase, the highest effects were observed for patients with mild impairments, for all studies technologies. Network meta-analyses showed that VR and RAT were both significantly superior to TR in improving motor function during the chronic phase but revealed no significant difference between VR, RAT and TR effectiveness on both motor function (during the subacute phase) and activity (during both chronic and subacute phase).

conclusionsThis overview provides low-to-moderate evidence that rehabilitation assisted with technologies are at least as effective as conventional therapy for patients with stroke. While VR and RAT seem to be more efficient during the subacute phase, all technologies seem to be as efficient as one another in the chronic phase.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationTelerehabilitationHumansUpper Extremity

Identifiers

PMID35666491
PMCPMC9980549
OpenAlexW4281724611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.