ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Rehabilitation robotics in routine care: a minimum dataset and reporting framework for service delivery models.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rehabilitation robotics has accumulated evidence for improving motor outcomes, yet adoption in routine care remains uneven across services and health systems. This evidence-to-practice gap reflects not only clinical considerations but also variation in how robotic rehabilitation is organized and delivered. Relevant service features include staffing and supervision patterns, scheduling rules, device placement, maintenance and support arrangements, governance, and documentation workflows. Current studies often describe the technology and clinical protocol while reporting service delivery features inconsistently, which limits transferability and weakens interpretation of implementation and economic findings. This perspective proposes a pragmatic reporting standard for service models in robotic rehabilitation. Its purpose is to make delivery configurations measurable and comparable across settings, while distinguishing the steady-state service delivery model from the time-limited implementation strategies used to establish, adapt, or sustain it. The standard includes a taxonomy of common service delivery archetypes, a Minimum Service Model Dataset for Rehabilitation Robotics (MSMD-RR) specifying must-report variables with operational definitions and units, and a reporting checklist, robotic rehabilitation service reporting (ROBOT-SERV), designed to complement established implementation science and health economic reporting guidance. MSMD-RR variables were selected for feasibility in routine care, cross-context interpretability, and plausible links to key drivers of real-world value, particularly utilization hours, throughput, therapist time, and downtime. A service model logic model is also provided to link inputs and processes to outputs and implementation, organizational, and economic outcomes. The proposed standard aims to support benchmarking, pragmatic evaluation, and health technology assessment. Graphical abstract.
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.