Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42079819›Full record

Trial reportFrontiers in neurology

Innovative upper extremity rehabilitation methods in stroke patients: a comparison of robotic rehabilitation and action observation therapy-a randomized trial.

Emre Şenocak, Elif Korkut, Adem Aktürk, Aysel Yildiz Ozer

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05590156 (Can Action Observation Therapy be an Alternative to Robotic Rehabilitation to Improve Upper Extremity Functions in Stroke Patients? A Protocol of Randomized Controlled Study), which is not on this 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.

NCT05590156 nacompletednot on this map

Can Action Observation Therapy be an Alternative to Robotic Rehabilitation to Improve Upper Extremity Functions in Stroke Patients? A Protocol of Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorEmre ŞenocakRan2022 to 2023Enrolled30ConditionsStrokeArmsConventional Rehabilitation, Robotic Rehabilitation (ExoRehab X), Action Observation Therapy (AOT)
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

4 authors.

Emre ŞenocakFaculty of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Türkiye.
Elif KorkutDepartment of Neurology, Bağcılar Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Adem AktürkVocational School of Health, Department of Podology, İstanbul Gelişim University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Aysel Yildiz OzerDepartment of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Marmara University, Istanbul, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: After a stroke, difficulties with arm and hand movement most affect daily life. To overcome these difficulties, research is ongoing to find the most effective treatment approaches. This study investigated which of two different technology-based rehabilitation approaches improved upper extremity motor function, independence, and quality of life in stroke. Methods: Thirty patients were randomized into two groups: robotic rehabilitation (RR) and action observation therapy (AOT). Upper extremity movements were repeated with active participation using the Houston Bionics ExoRehab X device in the RR group. On the other hand, the AOT group focused on watching and practicing functional movements through 31 first-person perspective videos. Motor functions, independence, and quality of life were assessed by the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Box-Block Test (BBT), Barthel Index (BI), and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (SS-QoL). Results: The WMFT, BBT, BI, and SS-QoL scores of both groups improved from baseline. However, neither group was superior to the other in the first 4 weeks' results. At the end of 8 weeks, the RR group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in all parameters compared with the AOT group ( Discussion: While both treatment methods showed similar short-term improvements, the RR group demonstrated greater improvements in motor function and independence than the AOT group at the end of 8 weeks. The fact that AOT gains slow down after the 4th week raises the question of which week these gains will stop. Clinical trial registration: Name: Effects of the Action Observation Therapy and Robotic Rehabilitation on the Upper-Limb Motor Function in Stroke. ID: NCT05590156 (18.04.2024). URL: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/beta/studies/S000CKXO00000049/recordSummary.

Indexed as

action observation therapymotor functionquality of liferobotic rehabilitationstroke

Identifiers

PMID42079819
PMCPMC13128369

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.