Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.
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
12 authors.
Christopher A JohnsonRancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center, Rancho Research Institute, Downey, CA 90242, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1482-9525
Andria J FarrensDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4513-4750
Piyashi BiswasDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9801-8828
Luis Garcia-FernandezDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-5929-3797
Jill SeeIrvine Medical Center, Department of Rehabilitation Services, University of California, Orange, CA 92868, USA.
Lucy DodakianIrvine Medical Center, Department of Rehabilitation Services, University of California, Orange, CA 92868, USA.
Vicky ChanIrvine Medical Center, Department of Rehabilitation Services, University of California, Orange, CA 92868, USA.
Po T WangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6611-3863
Steven C CramerDepartment of Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Zoran NenadicDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
An H DoDepartment of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
David J ReinkensmeyerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3196-8706
Funding
Institute for Clinical and Translational ScienceUM1TR004927 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI DAN M COOPER, Eric J. Vilain · 2024 to 2026
$12.2M
Brain-computer interface-functional electrical stimulation for stroke recoveryR01HD095457 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI CRAMER, STEVEN C., DO, AN · 2019 to 2023
$3.7M
EFFECTIVENESS OF ROBOT-ASSISTED HAND MOVEMENT TRAINING AFTER STROKER01HD062744 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI David Jay Reinkensmeyer · 2010 to 2026
In rehabilitation research, coarse clinical outcome measures may limit the sensitivity of trials by failing to detect meaningful intervention-induced changes. Sensorized robotic platforms can potentially improve the evaluation of motor function, yet their reliability compared to skilled therapists remains unclear. This study utilized a robotic device to measure two fundamental impairments that are critical to ankle function: range of motion (ROM, active and passive) and dorsiflexion maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). In 34 chronic hemiparetic post-stroke individuals, we assessed test-retest reliability over two days for the robot and experienced therapists, who used a goniometer and manual muscle testing (MMT). We also evaluated robotic test-retest reliability in 36 young and 26 older unimpaired adults. Reliability for robotic and therapist-based AROM and MVC measures was high (ICC > 0.86), consistent across all groups. Robotic AROM and PROM measurements correlated strongly with therapist assessments (r > 0.60,
Indexed as
AnkleRoboticsStrokeStroke RehabilitationAdultAgedAnkle JointFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRange of Motion, ArticularReproducibility of Resultsankle motor functionrobotic assessmenttest–retest reliability
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.
Robotic Ankle Assessment Post-Stroke: Reliability, Comparison to Therapists, and Benchmark Dataset Development. · full record | OpenQuestion