Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40856375›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2025

Individual and combined applied robotic hand rehabilitation and conventional rehabilitation for post-stroke hemiplegia: a prospective three-arm randomized study.

Betül Başar, Berrin Hüner, Erva Kahraman

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Betül BaşarDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Gaziosmanpaşa Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Türkiye - betulakarvardar@hotmail.com.
Berrin HünerDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Gaziosmanpaşa Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Erva KahramanDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Gaziosmanpaşa Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional rehabilitation (CR) and robotic hand rehabilitation (RR) are effective rehabilitation options for post-stroke hemiplegia. Combining these two rehabilitation protocols may positively affect the results.

aimTo compare the effectiveness of individual and combined applications of CR and RR on hand and upper extremity function, spasticity, grip and tip pinch strength in the treatment of post-stroke hemiplegia.

designA three-arm, prospective randomized controlled trial.

settingMultidisciplinary rehabilitation facility. POPULATION: Sixty-six patients with post-stroke hemiplegia.

methodsParticipants were randomized into three groups: RR, CR, and combined conventional and robotic hand rehabilitation (CR-RR). For the RR group, a passive and active finger motion program (40 minutes a day), along with a home-based rehabilitation program, was administered using the robotic device. For the CR group, traditional manual therapy techniques were used to improve activities of daily living and to achieve isometric contractions in weak muscles (60 minutes a day). For the CR-RR group, 60 minutes of conventional rehabilitation was followed by 40 minutes of hand rehabilitation using the robotic device. The patients in all groups were rehabilitated for 1 month, 5 days a week. The Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment Scale was used as primary outcome measure for evaluating the upper extremity function. The secondary outcome was evaluated based on hand function, upper extremity and hand motor function, activities of daily living (ADLs), upper extremity spasticity, and hand strength.

resultsCR-RR was significantly more effective than both CR and RR in improving upper extremity function, hand function, and ADLs. The only group that had no effect on upper extremity function was RR. All three rehabilitation protocols were ineffective in treating shoulder adductor and elbow flexor spasticity. While all three protocols effectively reduced spasticity in the wrist, fingers, and thumb flexors, CR was significantly less effective compared to the other groups. Although the CR-RR and RR groups had similar results in reducing wrist and finger flexor spasticity, the CR-RR group was significantly more effective than the RR group in reducing thumb spasticity. CR did not influence grip and tip pinch strength, whereas both CR-RR and RR led to significant improvements.

conclusionsRR has no effect on upper extremity functional results. CR has no effect on grip and pinch strength and only a limited effect on wrist, finger, and thumb flexor spasticity. Combining conventional rehabilitation with robotic rehabilitation in the CR-RR protocol yields better results in daily living activities, upper extremity function, hand function, wrist, finger, and thumb flexor spasticity, as well as hand grip and tip pinch strength in post-stroke hemiplegia. CLINICAL REHABILTATION IMPACT: Concomitant application of RR and CR achieves better outcomes in post-stroke hemiplegia.

Indexed as

HandHemiplegiaRoboticsStroke RehabilitationActivities of Daily LivingAgedFemaleHand StrengthHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle SpasticityProspective StudiesRecovery of FunctionStrokeTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40856375
PMCPMC12404269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.