SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic assisted versus conventional training for physical rehabilitation care after burns: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on high-quality randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional burn rehabilitation faces challenges in restoring physical function due to pain-related kinesiophobia and therapist-dependent variability. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and mechanisms of robot-assisted training (RAT) versus conventional rehabilitation in burn patients. Methods: Meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs, n = 593) via Cochrane methodology. Inverse-variance models assessed outcomes (α = 0.05); heterogeneity quantified by I². Primary outcomes included gait independence (Functional Ambulation Categories), hand dexterity, scar biomechanics (R0), and pain (VAS). Results: RAT significantly improved FAC scores (OR:0.89, 95%CI:0.08–1.70; p = 0.03), scar pliability (R0: OR:0.28, 95%CI:0.08–0.47; p = 0.006; I²=31%), and fine motor dexterity (JTT-small objects: p = 0.04). Walking endurance increased substantially (6MWT: MD:0.89 m, p < 0.001; 10MWT: MD: -4.30s, p < 0.001), with lower limb active ROM enhancement exceeding controls by 45.8% (p < 0.001). RAT induced no pain exacerbation (ΔVAS: p = 0.15), potentially attributed to biomechanical collagen remodeling and neurocognitive pain modulation. Evidence limitations included geographical concentration (80% East Asian cohorts) and absence of long-term (> 12-week) data. Conclusions: RAT surpasses conventional therapy in functional recovery by leveraging neuromechanical adaptations without increasing pain. Multicenter trials standardizing protocols and integrating psychosocial metrics are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41796258What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.