SynthesisNeural plasticity2026
Robot-Assisted Upper-Limb Rehabilitation After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cortical Reorganization and Neuroplasticity Biomarkers.
Synthesis in Neural plasticity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRobot-assisted upper-limb rehabilitation is widely used after stroke, but links to neuroplasticity biomarkers remain uncertain.
objectiveTo synthesize biomarker evidence after robot-assisted upper-limb training and quantify post-intervention effects versus non-robot comparators.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, and Scopus from inception to December 31, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized intervention studies enrolling adults with stroke were eligible if they reported at least one neuroplasticity biomarker. Prespecified comparison classes were used; only the primary contrast (robot-assisted training vs. non-robot control) was pooled at post using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models. Effects were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs; Hedges' g) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsFifty-five studies, including 24 RCTs, were included. Four RCTs contributed to the primary quantitative synthesis, and each pooled endpoint included two or three trials. Robot-assisted training was associated with improved ipsilesional resting motor threshold (RMT; SMD 1.77, 95% CI: 0.46-3.08; k = 2) and upper-limb impairment (Fugl-Meyer assessment-upper extremity [FMA-UE]; MD 4.48 points, 95% CI: 0.33-8.62; k = 3). Effects were uncertain for ipsilesional motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude (SMD 0.52, 95% CI: -0.31-1.34; k = 2) and activities of daily living (ADL). Heterogeneity was moderate to substantial, prediction intervals crossed the null, and certainty was low or very low.
conclusionsRobot-assisted training may improve impairment and corticospinal excitability, but randomized biomarker evidence remains sparse and heterogeneous. Biomarkers should be interpreted as exploratory observations, not validated surrogates or causal evidence of cortical restitution.
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.