Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Efficacy of a soft robotic exoskeleton for upper-limb rehabilitation in subacute stroke inpatient rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSoft robotic devices may be a useful adjunct for stroke rehabilitation by providing higher intensity training, while allowing comfort and portability compared to rigid exoskeletons. We evaluated the efficacy of a sensor-assisted soft robotic glove (SSR) during inpatient stroke rehabilitation.
methodsThis assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial was conducted in 2 inpatient rehabilitation units. Adults aged 21-90 years old, with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke and unilateral upper-limb impairment were recruited between July 2023 and May 2025. Participants were randomised to either [1] SSR or [2] supervised Graded Repetitive Arm Supplementary Programme (GRASP) training for up to 15 sessions, 30-45 min/session; 5 days/week for up to 3 weeks. The primary outcome was Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE). Secondary outcomes included Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale, the DuruÖz Hand Index, and Stroke Impact Scale-16 (SIS-16). Outcomes were assessed at baseline (T1), post-intervention (T2) and follow-up at 3 months (T3).
resultsRecruitment ceased before the planned sample size was reached due to funding constraints. Therefore, the trial was underpowered to detect the prespecified between-group difference. Of 323 screened individuals, 61 were randomised. 3 participants did not complete T2 assessment resulting in a modified intention-to-treat population of 58 (SSR n = 28, control n = 30). Both groups showed improvement across primary and secondary outcomes, with no statistically significant differences observed between them. In a post-hoc exploratory subgroup analysis with baseline FMA-UE < 35 and ≥ 10 sessions (n = 38), a statistically significant difference in FMA-UE distal sub-score at T2 was observed, favouring the SSR group (mean difference 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02 to 6.09, p = 0.049) but not at T3. A numerically higher proportion of participants in the SSR group achieved minimal clinically important difference value for SIS-16 (77.8% vs. 55.0%, adjusted odds ratio 6.52 (95% CI 1.00 to 42.58, absolute risk difference 22.8% [95% CI -7.2% to 47.4%], p = 0.050) at T2, but did not reach statistical significance.
conclusionSensor-assisted soft robotic glove training did not demonstrate superiority over supervised GRASP for upper limb function post-stroke. Exploratory subgroup analyses identified a signal suggesting improved distal hand motor recovery in participants with greater baseline impairment with sufficient therapy exposure.
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.