Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36897464›Full record

Trial reportNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2023

Is the robotic rehabilitation that is added to intensive body rehabilitation effective for maximization of upper extremity motor recovery following a stroke? A randomized controlled study.

Emre Şenocak, Elif Korkut, Adem Aktürk, Aysel Yildiz Ozer

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05559385 (Is Robot-Assisted System Effective for the Maximization of Upper Extremity Motor Recovery in Intensive Body Rehabilitation Following a Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT05559385 nacompletednot on this map

Is Robot-Assisted System Effective for the Maximization of Upper Extremity Motor Recovery in Intensive Body Rehabilitation Following a Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorEmresenocakRan2022 to 2022Enrolled41ConditionsStrokeArmsRobot-Assissted Therapy, Conventional Rehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
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

4 authors.

Emre ŞenocakFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. emre.senocak@windowslive.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3677-9813
Elif KorkutClinic of Neurology, Bağcılar Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4778-3781
Adem AktürkDepartment of Podology, Vocational School of Health Services, İstanbul Gelişim University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2487-5720
Aysel Yildiz OzerFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0739-6143

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTrunk stabilization, which is a factor that directly affects the performance of affected upper-limb movements in stroke patients, is of critical importance in the performance of selective motor control.

aimsThis study aimed to investigate the effects on upper-limb motor function of the addition of robotic rehabilitation (RR) and conventional rehabilitation (CR) to intensive trunk rehabilitation (ITR).

methodsA total of 41 subacute stroke patients were randomly allocated to two groups: RR and CR. Both groups received the same ITR procedure. Following ITR, a robot-assisted rehabilitation program of 60 min, 5 days a week, for 6 weeks, was applied to the RR group, and an individualized upper-limb rehabilitation to the CR group. Assessments were made at baseline and after 6 weeks using the Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS), Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Motor Evaluation Scale (FMA-UE), and Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT).

resultsImprovements were obtained in the TIS, FMA-UE, and WMFT scores for both groups (p < 0.001), with no superiority detected between the groups (p > 0.05). The RR group scores were relatively high, but not to a statistically significant.

conclusionsWhen added to intensive trunk rehabilitation, the robot-assisted systems, which are recommended as a stand-alone therapy method, produced similar results to conventional therapies. This technology can be used as an alternative to conventional methods under appropriate conditions of clinical opportunity, access, time management, and staff limitations. However, when RR is combined with traditional interventions such as intensive trunk rehabilitation, it is essential to investigate if the real effect is due to the robotic rehabilitation or the accumulation of positive effects of excessive movement or force spread associated with trained muscles. REGISTRATION: This trial was retrospectively registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov with NCT05559385 registration number (25/09/2022).

Indexed as

RoboticsRobotic Surgical ProceduresStrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansRecovery of FunctionTreatment OutcomeUpper ExtremityConventional rehabilitationIntensive trunk rehabilitationMotor functionRobotic rehabilitationStroke

Identifiers

PMID36897464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.