ArticleBMJ case reports2023
Computer-assisted robotic device for upper limb interventions for a patient with an incomplete cervical level spinal cord injury.
Article in BMJ case reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Current and emergent therapies targeting spinal cord injury.Brain & spine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A man in his 50s with an incomplete cervical spinal cord injury underwent a 3-week occupational therapy programme using a computer-assisted robotic device for the upper limbs (Diego) in an acute care spinal injury unit. The patient and their partner reported their experience. Range of motion (ROM), muscle strength, pain, fatigue, independence and occupational performance are reported. Improvements occurred in upper limb ROM (shoulder and elbow), muscle strength (right elbow extensors), fatigue and functional status. Whether the results in this patient with the Diego were the same or better than standard care could not be determined. Preliminary findings suggest that the Diego was feasible for rehabilitation in an acute setting in our patient. However, it may not be suitable for all patients and a large comparative study with other therapies is needed. A limitation in the use of the Diego relates to the initial cost of the device ($A150 000).
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.