ArticleBMJ open2022
Experiences of patients who had a stroke and rehabilitation professionals with upper limb rehabilitation robots: a qualitative systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Upper Robot-Assisted Training on Upper Limb Motor, Daily Life Activities, and Muscular Tone in Patients With Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2024Pooled it
- The impact of a PERMA model-based positive psychology intervention on fear of stroke recurrence: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmerging evidence suggests that robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation after a stroke may improve upper limb function. For robotic upper limb rehabilitation in stroke to be successful, patients' experiences and those of the rehabilitation professionals must be considered. Therefore, this review aims to synthesise the available evidence on experiences of patients after a stroke with rehabilitation robots for upper limb rehabilitation and the experiences of rehabilitation professionals with rehabilitation robots for upper limb stroke rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Database search will include MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Elsevier), Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). Grey literature from Open Grey, PsyArXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv and Google Scholar will also be searched. Qualitative studies or results from mixed-method studies that include adult patients after a stroke who use upper limb rehabilitation robots, either supervised by rehabilitation professionals or by patients themselves, at any stage of their rehabilitation and/or stroke professionals who use upper limb rehabilitation robots will be included. Robotic upper limb rehabilitation provided by students, healthcare assistants, technicians, non-professional caregivers, family caregivers, volunteer caregivers or other informal caregivers will be excluded. Articles published in English will be considered regardless of date of publication. Studies will be screened and critically appraised for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. A standardised tool from JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information for data extraction, the meta-aggregation approach for data synthesis and the ConQual approach for confidence evaluation will be followed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this systematic review is based on previously published research, no informed consent or ethical approval is required. It is anticipated that this systematic review will highlight the experiences of patients after a stroke and perceived facilitators and barriers for rehabilitation professionals on this topic, which will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022321402.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.