Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37447718›Full record

Trial reportSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

A Sensor-Based Feedback Device Stimulating Daily Life Upper Extremity Activity in Stroke Patients: A Feasibility Study.

Anthonia J Langerak, Gerrit Ruben Hendrik Regterschot, Marc Evers, Bert-Jan F van Beijnum, Carel G M Meskers, Ruud W Selles, Gerard M Ribbers, Johannes B J Bussmann

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Anthonia J LangerakDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7724-4439
Gerrit Ruben Hendrik RegterschotDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marc EversRijndam Rehabilitation, 3015 LJ Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bert-Jan F van BeijnumDepartment of Biomedical Signals and Systems, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands.
Carel G M MeskersDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Neuroscience and Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ruud W SellesDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2432-6756
Gerard M RibbersDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6114-349X
Johannes B J BussmannDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLCodarts Rotterdam · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

Health Holland project number: LSHM17065
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and explore the efficacy of the Arm Activity Tracker (AAT). The AAT is a device based on wrist-worn accelerometers that provides visual and tactile feedback to stimulate daily life upper extremity (UE) activity in stroke patients.

methodsA randomised, crossover within-subject study was conducted in sub-acute stroke patients admitted to a rehabilitation centre. Feasibility encompassed (1) adherence: the dropout rate and the number of participants with insufficient AAT data collection; (2) acceptance: the technology acceptance model (range: 7-112) and (3) usability: the system usability scale (range: 0-100). A two-way ANOVA was used to estimate the difference between the baseline, intervention and control conditions for (1) paretic UE activity and (2) UE activity ratio.

resultsSeventeen stroke patients were included. A 29% dropout rate was observed, and two participants had insufficient data collection. Participants who adhered to the study reported good acceptance (median (IQR): 94 (77-111)) and usability (median (IQR): 77.5 (75-78.5)-). We found small to medium effect sizes favouring the intervention condition for paretic UE activity (η

conclusionParticipants who adhered to the study showed good acceptance and usability of the AAT and increased paretic UE activity. Dropouts should be further evaluated, and a sufficiently powered trial should be performed to analyse efficacy.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationFeasibility StudiesFeedbackHumansRecovery of FunctionUpper Extremityaccelerometryarm usagedaily lifefeedbackrehabilitationstrokeupper extremity

Identifiers

PMID37447718
PMCPMC10346467
OpenAlexW4382134791

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.