Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35773733›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2022

Soft robotics and functional electrical stimulation advances for restoring hand function in people with SCI: a narrative review, clinical guidelines and future directions.

Lucas R L Cardoso, Vanesa Bochkezanian, Arturo Forner-Cordero, Alejandro Melendez-Calderon, Antonio P L Bo

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

5 authors.

Lucas R L CardosoBiomedical Engineering, School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. lrl.cardoso@uqconnect.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9723-1582
Vanesa BochkezanianCollege of Health Sciences, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, North Rockhampton, Australia.
Arturo Forner-CorderoBiomechatronics Laboratory, Escola Politecnica, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Alejandro Melendez-CalderonBiomedical Engineering, School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Antonio P L BoBiomedical Engineering, School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecovery of hand function is crucial for the independence of people with spinal cord injury (SCI). Wearable devices based on soft robotics (SR) or functional electrical stimulation (FES) have been employed to assist the recovery of hand function both during activities of daily living (ADLs) and during therapy. However, the implementation of these wearable devices has not been compiled in a review focusing on the functional outcomes they can activate/elicit/stimulate/potentiate. This narrative review aims at providing a guide both for engineers to help in the development of new technologies and for clinicians to serve as clinical guidelines based on the available technology in order to assist and/or recover hand function in people with SCI.

methodsA literature search was performed in Scopus, Pubmed and IEEE Xplore for articles involving SR devices or FES systems designed for hand therapy or assistance, published since 2010. Only studies that reported functional outcomes from individuals with SCI were selected. The final collections of both groups (SR and FES) were analysed based on the technical aspects and reported functional outcomes.

resultsA total of 37 out of 1101 articles were selected, 12 regarding SR and 25 involving FES devices. Most studies were limited to research prototypes, designed either for assistance or therapy. From an engineering perspective, technological improvements for home-based use such as portability, donning/doffing and the time spent with calibration were identified. From the clinician point of view, the most suitable technical features (e.g., user intent detection) and assessment tools should be determined according to the particular patient condition. A wide range of functional assessment tests were adopted, moreover, most studies used non-standardized tests.

conclusionSR and FES wearable devices are promising technologies to support hand function recovery in subjects with SCI. Technical improvements in aspects such as the user intent detection, portability or calibration as well as consistent assessment of functional outcomes were the main identified limitations. These limitations seem to be be preventing the translation into clinical practice of these technological devices created in the laboratory.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyRoboticsSpinal Cord InjuriesActivities of Daily LivingElectric StimulationHumansAssistive devicesFingersFunctional electrical stimulationHandsRehabilitationSoft roboticsSpinal cord injuryTetraplegiaTherapy

Identifiers

PMID35773733
PMCPMC9245887

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.