ArticleBMC neurology2026
Usability testing of an upper-extremity rehabilitation robot for stroke rehabilitation.
Article in BMC neurology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the usability and user experience of the FLEXO-Arm1 upper limb rehabilitation robot among stroke survivors and rehabilitation therapists.
methodsA mixed-methods approach was employed, incorporating System Usability Scale (SUS) and User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) assessments alongside semi-structured interviews. Participants included stroke survivors with varying degrees of upper limb dysfunction and rehabilitation therapists who utilized the FLEXO-Arm1 for Passive Movement Training (PMT) and task-oriented training (TOT).
resultsOverall SUS scores indicated that stroke survivors rated the robot’s usability higher (A-, 87%) than rehabilitation therapists (B-, 67%). UEQ analysis revealed positive evaluations across all scales, particularly in attractiveness and clarity, with stroke survivors providing higher ratings than therapists. Semi-structured interviews highlighted operational challenges, particularly for those with severe upper limb dysfunction, while affirming the robot’s acceptance and potential as a supplementary rehabilitation tool.
conclusionThe FLEXO-Arm1 robot demonstrates favorable usability and user experience for both stroke survivors and therapists. While the device shows promise in rehabilitation settings, enhancements are necessary for users with severe impairments. Further studies should explore the device’s long-term impact on rehabilitation practices.
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.