Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39180054›Full record

ArticleNeurological research and practice2024

User expectations and experiences of an assistive robotic arm in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a multicenter observational study.

Susanne Spittel, Thomas Meyer, Ute Weyen, Torsten Grehl, Patrick Weydt, Robert Steinbach, Susanne Petri, Petra Baum, Moritz Metelmann, Anne-Dorte Sperfeld and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurological research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Susanne SpittelDepartment of Neurology, Center for ALS and Other Motor Neuron Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. susanne.spittel@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9471-7798
Thomas MeyerDepartment of Neurology, Center for ALS and Other Motor Neuron Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2736-7350
Ute WeyenDepartment of Neurology, Center for ALS and Other Motor Neuron Disorders, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Germany.
Torsten GrehlDepartment of Neurology, Center for ALS and Other Motor Neuron Disorders, Alfried Krupp Krankenhaus, Essen, Germany.
Patrick WeydtDepartment for Neuromusclar Disorders, Bonn University, Bonn, Germany.
Robert SteinbachDepartment of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3936-6010
Susanne PetriDepartment of Neurology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Petra BaumDepartment of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Moritz MetelmannDepartment of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Anne-Dorte SperfeldDepartment of Neurology, Sächsisches Krankenhaus Altscherbitz, Altscherbitz, Germany.
Dagmar KettemannDepartment of Neurology, Center for ALS and Other Motor Neuron Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Jenny NordenDepartment of Neurology, Center for ALS and Other Motor Neuron Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Annekathrin RödigerDepartment of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Benjamin IlseDepartment of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
Julian GrosskreutzDepartment of Neurology, Universitätsmedizin Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Barbara HildebrandtAmbulanzpartner Soziotechnologie APST GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Bertram WalterDepartment of Neurology, Center for ALS and Other Motor Neuron Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Christoph MünchDepartment of Neurology, Center for ALS and Other Motor Neuron Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
André MaierDepartment of Neurology, Center for ALS and Other Motor Neuron Disorders, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2473-4116

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRobotic arms are innovative assistive devices for ALS patients with progressive motor deficits of arms and hands. The objective was to explore the patients´ expectations towards a robotic arm system and to assess the actual experiences after the provision of the device.

methodsA prospective observational study was conducted at 9 ALS centers in Germany. ALS-related functional deficits were assessed using the ALS-Functional Rating Scale-revised (ALSFRS-R). Motor deficit of the upper limbs was determined using a subscore of three arm-related items of the ALSFRS-R (items 4-6; range 0-12 points). User expectations before provision (expectation group, n = 85) and user experiences after provision (experience group, n = 14) with the device (JACO Assistive Robotic Device, Kinova, Boisbriand, QC, Canada) were assessed.

resultsIn the total cohort, mean ALSFRS-R subscore for arm function was 1.7 (SD: 2.0, 0-9) demonstrating a severe functional deficit of the upper limbs. In the expectation group (n = 85), the following use cases of the robotic arm have been prioritized: handling objects (89%), close-body movements (88%), pressing buttons (87%), serving drinks (86%), and opening cabinets and doors (85%). In the experience group (n = 14), handling objects (79%), serving drinks (79%), near-body movements (71%), pushing buttons (71%), serving food (64%), and opening doors (64%) were the most frequent used cases. Most patients used the device daily (71.4%, n = 10), and 28.6% (n = 4) several times a week. All patients of the experience group found the device helpful, felt safe while using the device, and were satisfied with its reliability. NPS of the assistive robotic arm revealed 64% "promoters" (strong recommendation), 29% "indifferents" (uncertain recommendation) and 7% "detractors" (no recommendation). Total NPS was + 57 demonstrating strong patient satisfaction.

conclusionsInitiation of procurement with a robotic assistive arm was confined to patients with severe functional deficit of the upper limbs. User experience underlined the wide spectrum of use cases of assistive robotic arms in ALS. The positive user experience together with high satisfaction underscore that robotic arm systems serve as a valuable treatment option in ALS patients with severe motor deficits of the arms.

Indexed as

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosisAssistive robotic armAssistive technology devicesCase managementMotor neuron diseasePlatform

Identifiers

PMID39180054
PMCPMC11344397

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.