Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
AGREE: an upper limb motorized exoskeleton for restoring arm functions: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTechnology-assisted neurorehabilitation is a promising strategy to address the healthcare system overload we are witnessing in recent years. Given the lack of concordance on the effectiveness of upper-limb exoskeletons, it is important to clinically test innovative prototypes. This randomized controlled trial evaluated AGREE, a motorized exoskeleton assisting shoulder and elbow movements with a novel unified control system, against standard care.
methodsThe study involved 32 neurological patients with upper limb motor deficits at Casa di Cura del Policlinico (Italy). The randomization list was generated electronically to allocate participants into two groups. Both groups received 15 training sessions (45 min, three times weekly). The outcome measures considered were: (i) usability (System Usability Scale), (ii) clinical changes in Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Action Research Arm Test, Motricity Index, and Box and Block Test from baseline to post-treatment, and iii) treatment dosage.
resultsThe usability of the system was evaluated at the end of the intervention by participants with a resulting median SUS score of 68.7 (IQR = 31.8). Both groups showed comparable significant clinical improvements in all clinical outcome measures, with experimental group patients improving both according to the Fugl-Meyer ( DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsTherapists operated the AGREE system independently, and no adverse events occurred. Patients reported a moderate usability of the system. While outcomes slightly favoured the control group for FM and ARAT scales, the obtained results support literature evidence, which indicates that the two treatments are globally comparable. Notably, the experimental group achieved comparable improvements with reduced treatment time, suggesting therapy consistency and frequency may be more impactful than session duration. Future research should further examine optimal rehabilitation dosing strategies.
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.