Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41555385›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026

Greater recovery of upper-limb function in stroke patients with repetitive functional proprioceptive stimulation compared to robotic mechanotherapy: a quasi-randomized controlled trial.

Marina Shurupova, Olga Fuchizhi, Galina Ivanova

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06143475 (Repetetive Sessions of Functional Proprioceptive Stimulation of the Upper Limbs in Stroke Patients During Short Rehabilitation Programm), which is not on this 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.

NCT06143475 nacompletednot on this map

Repetetive Sessions of Functional Proprioceptive Stimulation of the Upper Limbs in Stroke Patients During Short Rehabilitation Programm

TypeinterventionalSponsorFederal Center of Cerebrovascular Pathology and Stroke, Russian Federation Ministry of HealthRan2021 to 2023Enrolled60ConditionsStroke, Motor Disorders, Upper Extremity Paresis, Muscle WeaknessArmsFPS group, Conventional therapy group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Marina ShurupovaDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation, Federal Center of Brain Research and Neurotechnologies, Ostrovityanova street 1 building 10, Moscow, 117513, Russia. shurupova@fccps.ru.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2214-3187
Olga FuchizhiDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation, Federal Center of Brain Research and Neurotechnologies, Ostrovityanova street 1 building 10, Moscow, 117513, Russia.
Galina IvanovaDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation, Federal Center of Brain Research and Neurotechnologies, Ostrovityanova street 1 building 10, Moscow, 117513, Russia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3180-5525

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMotor impairments and spastic paresis cause important functional limitations into daily life activities of stroke patients. The application of functional proprioceptive stimulations (FPS), i.e. focal vibration that induce complex kinesthetic sensation of movement, emerges as a promising therapeutic tool inside the neurorehabilitation process. The aim of the current study was to assess the efficacy of multi-segmental FPS in upper-limb function recovery among stroke patients with a Modified Rankin scale score of 3, compared to a standard robotic mechanotherapy rehabilitation protocols, over a three-week rehabilitation period.

methodsThe design of the study was parallel-group assessor-blinded quasi-RCT. Sixty stroke patients aged 32–76, 1–6 months post-stroke, were divided into an experimental group (EG) and a control group (CG), each with 30 participants. The CG received 12 daily sessions of conventional physical therapy and 12 sessions of robotic mechanotherapy, the EG underwent 12 sessions of FPS in addition to the same conventional therapy. To assess the upper-limb recovery functional scales MRC, MAS, FMA-UE, FAT, ARAT, NPRS were used before and after the intervention.

resultsThe EG showed a significant improvement in FMA-UE, with a change of 19 points compared to 3 points in the CG (23% vs. 4.5%), exceeding the MCID threshold, primarily due to changes in distal musculature (no changes in CG). MRC distal, MAS, and FMA-UE scores demonstrated significantly higher MCID in the EG. A multiple linear regression identified significant predictors of changes primarily in the EG, mainly time since stroke and initial scores on the respective scale.

conclusionFPS combined with conventional therapy significantly enhances upper-limb recovery in stroke patients, particularly by improving distal musculature, with time since stroke and initial scores being key predictors of success. Such rehabilitation allows patients to use the upper limb more effectively when performing household activities such as eating, dressing, personal hygiene, etc.

trial registrationThe trial was registered on 16.11.2023 at ClinicalTrials.gov, under the registration number NCT06143475.

Indexed as

Functional proprioceptive stimulationRehabilitationSpasticityStrokeUpper limb

Identifiers

PMID41555385
PMCPMC12895587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.