SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
The effectiveness of robotic therapy in reducing upper limb spasticity in stroke survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted therapy (RAT) represents an evolving approach to post-stroke upper limb rehabilitation; however, its impact on spasticity modification remains inadequately characterized. Critical knowledge gaps persist due to the diversity of robotic technologies, heterogeneous treatment protocols, and methodological limitations in outcome reporting, particularly the conflation of proximal and distal spasticity measures. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the comparative effectiveness of robotic versus conventional interventions for upper limb spasticity management, examining the influence of robotic design, stroke stage, and treatment dosage on spasticity outcomes.
methodsWe searched six databases and two trial registries up to November 2024 for RCTs of RAT versus non-robotic comparators in adults with post-stroke upper limb spasticity. Secondary outcomes included upper-limb motor function, activities of daily living, and health-related quality of life. We used random (I2 ≥ 50%) or fixed effects meta-analysis to synthesize results, with subgroup analyses for stroke phase, device type, and anatomical region. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
resultsTwenty-nine RCTs (n = 1,577) were included. Overall, RAT produced a small but statistically significant reduction in elbow flexor spasticity on the Modified Ashworth Scale (MD − 0.25; 95% CI [− 0.40 to − 0.10]). This reduction was observed primarily in trials conducted in the chronic phase. Wrist flexor spasticity was also reduced (MD = − 0.22; 95% CI −0.37 to − 0.08). Reduction was also significant in studies using multi-joint devices (SMD − 0.26; 95% CI [− 0.43 to − 0.08]). In contrast, no significant reduction was found for shoulder adductor spasticity or for hand-only devices. RAT also improved motor function with Fugl-Meyer Assessment MD 1.97; 95% CI [0.83 to 3.12] but did not consistently improve ADL and quality of life. Importantly, there was no significant difference in the odds of treatment-related adverse events (OR 1.18; 95% CI [0.53 to 2.66]).
conclusionsThis systematic review provides evidence that RAT is a safe modality that can modestly reduce elbow and wrist flexor spasticity in post-stroke patients. The benefit is specific, appearing more robust with multi-joint devices and in the chronic phase of recovery. The primary value of RAT seems to be in safely delivering high-intensity motor practice rather than acting as a first-line anti-spasticity treatment. Registration PROSPERO CRD 42024615294.
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.