SynthesisNeuroRehabilitation2022
Effects of robotic upper limb treatment after stroke on cognitive patterns: A systematic review.
Synthesis in NeuroRehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted therapy following stroke: what effects on quality of life, cognitive and psychosocial outcomes? A systematic review.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Motor Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Occupational Therapy for Upper-Limb Recovery in Subacute Stroke: A Retrospective Cohort Study with Exploratory Neurocognitive Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Synergy-based functional electrical stimulation and robotic-assisted for retraining reach-to-grasp in stroke: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC neurology · 2023Article
- A Multiaxial Rehabilitation Programme for Workers with COVID-19 Sequelae Using a Conventional and Technological-Robotic Approach: The Proposal of INAIL and Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
43 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic therapy (RT) has been internationally recognized for the motor rehabilitation of the upper limb. Although it seems that RT can stimulate and promote neuroplasticity, the effectiveness of robotics in restoring cognitive deficits has been considered only in a few recent studies.
objectiveTo verify whether, in the current state of the literature, cognitive measures are used as inclusion or exclusion criteria and/or outcomes measures in robotic upper limb rehabilitation in stroke patients.
methodsThe systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies eligible were identified through PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to March 2021.
resultsEighty-one studies were considered in this systematic review. Seventy-three studies have at least a cognitive inclusion or exclusion criteria, while only seven studies assessed cognitive outcomes.
conclusionDespite the high presence of cognitive instruments used for inclusion/exclusion criteria their heterogeneity did not allow the identification of a guideline for the evaluation of patients in different stroke stages. Therefore, although the heterogeneity and the low percentage of studies that included cognitive outcomes, seemed that the latter were positively influenced by RT in post-stroke rehabilitation. Future larger RCTs are needed to outline which cognitive scales are most suitable and their cut-off, as well as what cognitive outcome measures to use in the various stages of post-stroke rehabilitation.
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.