Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35458975›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Using Robot-Based Variables during Upper Limb Robot-Assisted Training in Subacute Stroke Patients to Quantify Treatment Dose.

Pascal Jamin, Christophe Duret, Emilie Hutin, Nicolas Bayle, Typhaine Koeppel, Jean-Michel Gracies, Ophélie Pila

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Quo Vadis, Amadeo Hand Robot? A Randomized Study with a Hand Recovery Predictive Model in Subacute Stroke.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pascal JaminInstitut Robert Merle d'Aubigné, Rééducation et Appareillage, 94460 Valenton, France.
Christophe DuretCentre de Rééducation Fonctionnelle Les Trois Soleils, Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation, Unité de Neurorééducation, 77310 Boissise-Le-Roi, France.
Emilie HutinLaboratoire Analyse et Restauration Du Mouvement (ARM), Hôpital Henri MONDOR, Université Paris-Est, 94000 Créteil, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0512-104X
Nicolas BayleLaboratoire Analyse et Restauration Du Mouvement (ARM), Hôpital Henri MONDOR, Université Paris-Est, 94000 Créteil, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3726-2712
Typhaine KoeppelCentre de Rééducation Fonctionnelle Les Trois Soleils, Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation, Unité de Neurorééducation, 77310 Boissise-Le-Roi, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5115-1808
Jean-Michel GraciesLaboratoire Analyse et Restauration Du Mouvement (ARM), Hôpital Henri MONDOR, Université Paris-Est, 94000 Créteil, France.
Ophélie PilaCentre de Rééducation Fonctionnelle Les Trois Soleils, Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation, Unité de Neurorééducation, 77310 Boissise-Le-Roi, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4523-9448
Université Paris-Est Créteil · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In post-stroke motor rehabilitation, treatment dose description is estimated approximately. The aim of this retrospective study was to quantify the treatment dose using robot-measured variables during robot-assisted training in patients with subacute stroke. Thirty-six patients performed fifteen 60 min sessions (Session 1−Session 15) of planar, target-directed movements in addition to occupational therapy over 4 (SD 2) weeks. Fugl−Meyer Assessment (FMA) was carried out pre- and post-treatment. The actual time practiced (percentage of a 60 min session), the number of repeated movements, and the total distance traveled were analyzed across sessions for each training modality: assist as needed, unassisted, and against resistance. The FMA score improved post-treatment by 11 (10) points (Session 1 vs. Session 15, p < 0.001). In Session 6, all modalities pooled, the number of repeated movements increased by 129 (252) (vs. Session 1, p = 0.043), the total distance traveled increased by 1743 (3345) cm (vs. Session 1, p = 0.045), and the actual time practiced remained unchanged. In Session 15, the actual time practiced showed changes only in the assist-as-needed modality: −13 (23) % (vs. Session 1, p = 0.013). This description of changes in quantitative-practice-related variables when using different robotic training modalities provides comprehensive information related to the treatment dose in rehabilitation. The treatment dose intensity may be enhanced by increasing both the number of movements and the motor difficulty of performing each movement.

Indexed as

RoboticsStrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansRecovery of FunctionRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUpper Extremityhemiparesisintensityneurorehabilitationroboticsupper extremity

Identifiers

PMID35458975
PMCPMC9026756
OpenAlexW4223900387

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.