ArticleDisability and rehabilitation2025
Clinician perceptions of a novel wearable robotic hand orthosis for post-stroke hemiparesis.
Article in Disability and rehabilitation, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWearable robotic devices are currently being developed to improve upper limb function for individuals with hemiparesis after stroke. Incorporating the views of clinicians during the development of new technologies can help ensure that end products meet clinical needs and can be adopted for patient care.
methodsIn this cross-sectional mixed-methods study, an anonymous online survey was used to gather clinicians' perceptions of a wearable robotic hand orthosis for post-stroke hemiparesis. Participants were asked about their clinical experience and provided feedback on the prototype device after viewing a video.
results154 participants completed the survey. Only 18.8% had previous experience with robotic technology. The majority of participants (64.9%) reported that they would use the device for both rehabilitative and assistive purposes. Participants perceived that the device could be used in supervised clinical settings with all phases of stroke. Participants also indicated a need for insurance coverage and quick setup time.
conclusionsEngaging clinicians early in the design process can help guide the development of wearable robotic devices. Both rehabilitative and assistive functions are valued by clinicians and should be considered during device development. Future research is needed to understand a broader set of stakeholders' perspectives on utility and design.
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.