Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38640459›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of medicine2024

Portable robots for upper-limb rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kevin C Tseng, Le Wang, Chunkai Hsieh, Alice M Wong

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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.

Kevin C TsengDepartment of Industrial Design, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.ORCID 0000-0003-4601-0143
Le WangProduct Design and Development Laboratory, Taoyuan, Taiwan, ROC.
Chunkai HsiehProduct Design and Development Laboratory, Taoyuan, Taiwan, ROC.
Alice M WongProduct Design and Development Laboratory, Taoyuan, Taiwan, ROC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRobot-assisted upper-limb rehabilitation has been studied for many years, with many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of robotic-assisted training on affected limbs. The current trend directs towards end-effector devices. However, most studies have focused on the effectiveness of rehabilitation devices, but studies on device sizes are relatively few. GOAL: Systematically review the effect of a portable rehabilitation robot (PRR) on the rehabilitation effectiveness of paralysed upper limbs compared with non-robotic therapy.

methodsA meta-analysis was conducted on literature that included the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) obtained from the PubMed and Web of Science (WoS) electronic databases until June 2023.

resultsA total of 9 studies, which included RCTs, were completed and a meta-analysis was conducted on 8 of them. The analysis involved 295 patients. The influence on upper-limb function before and after treatment in a clinical environment is analysed by comparing the experimental group using the portable upper-limb rehabilitation robot with the control group using conventional therapy. The result shows that portable robots prove to be effective (FMA: SMD = 0.696, 95% = 0.099 to.293, DISCUSSION: Both robot-assisted and conventional rehabilitation effects are comparable. In some studies, PRR performs better than conventional rehabilitation, but conventional treatments are still irreplaceable. Smaller size with better portability has its advantages, and portable upper-limb rehabilitation robots are feasible in clinical rehabilitation.

conclusionAlthough portable upper-limb rehabilitation robots are clinically beneficial, few studies have focused on portability. Further research should focus on modular design so that rehabilitation robots can be decomposed, which benefits remote rehabilitation and household applications.

Indexed as

RoboticsStroke RehabilitationUpper ExtremityHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionStrokeTreatment Outcomeexoskeletonhand and upper extremity rehabilitationPortabilityroboticsstroke

Identifiers

PMID38640459
PMCPMC11034452

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.