Effectiveness of robot-assisted arm exercise on arm and hand function in stroke survivors - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Truls Johansen, Linda Sørensen, Knut K Kolskår, Vegard Strøm, Matthijs F Wouda
{"title":"Effectiveness of robot-assisted arm exercise on arm and hand function in stroke survivors - A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Truls Johansen,&nbsp;Linda Sørensen,&nbsp;Knut K Kolskår,&nbsp;Vegard Strøm,&nbsp;Matthijs F Wouda","doi":"10.1177/20556683231183639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To examine the treatment effect of commercially available robotic-assisted devices, compared to traditional occupational- and physiotherapy on arm and hand function in persons with stroke. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCT's) involving persons with stroke of all ages and robot-assisted exercise as method for arm and hand function, compared to traditional therapy methods were included. Three authors performed the selection independently. The quality of evidence across studies was assessed using GRADE. <b>Results:</b> Eighteen RCT's were included in the study. A random effects meta-analysis showed a statistically significantly higher treatment effect in the robotic-assisted exercise group (p=<0.0001) compared to the traditional treatment group, with a total effect size of 0.44 (CI = 0.22-0.65). Heterogeneity was high, measured with I<sup>2</sup> of 65%). Subgroup analyses showed no significant effects of the type of robotic device, treatment frequency or duration of intervention. <b>Discussion and conclusion:</b> Even though the analysis showed significant improvement in arm and hand function in favor of the robotic-assisted exercise group, the results in this systematic review should be interpreted with caution. This is due to high heterogeneity among the studies included and the presence of possible publication bias. Results of this study highlight the need for larger and more methodological robust RCT's, with a focus on reporting training intensity during robotic exercise.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f0/66/10.1177_20556683231183639.PMC10327418.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20556683231183639","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective: To examine the treatment effect of commercially available robotic-assisted devices, compared to traditional occupational- and physiotherapy on arm and hand function in persons with stroke. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCT's) involving persons with stroke of all ages and robot-assisted exercise as method for arm and hand function, compared to traditional therapy methods were included. Three authors performed the selection independently. The quality of evidence across studies was assessed using GRADE. Results: Eighteen RCT's were included in the study. A random effects meta-analysis showed a statistically significantly higher treatment effect in the robotic-assisted exercise group (p=<0.0001) compared to the traditional treatment group, with a total effect size of 0.44 (CI = 0.22-0.65). Heterogeneity was high, measured with I2 of 65%). Subgroup analyses showed no significant effects of the type of robotic device, treatment frequency or duration of intervention. Discussion and conclusion: Even though the analysis showed significant improvement in arm and hand function in favor of the robotic-assisted exercise group, the results in this systematic review should be interpreted with caution. This is due to high heterogeneity among the studies included and the presence of possible publication bias. Results of this study highlight the need for larger and more methodological robust RCT's, with a focus on reporting training intensity during robotic exercise.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

机器人辅助手臂锻炼对中风幸存者手臂和手部功能的影响——系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:研究市售机器人辅助装置的治疗效果,比较传统的职业和物理治疗对中风患者手臂和手功能的影响。方法:系统检索截至2022年1月的Medline、EMBASE、CINAHL和Cochrane中央对照试验登记册的文献。纳入随机对照试验(RCT),涉及所有年龄的中风患者,并将机器人辅助锻炼作为手臂和手部功能的方法,与传统治疗方法进行比较。三位作者独立进行了选择。所有研究的证据质量使用GRADE进行评估。结果:本研究纳入18项随机对照试验。随机效应荟萃分析显示,机器人辅助运动组的治疗效果有统计学意义上的显著提高(p=2 / 65%)。亚组分析显示,机器人设备的类型、治疗频率或干预时间没有显著影响。讨论与结论:尽管分析显示机器人辅助锻炼组在手臂和手部功能方面有显著改善,但本系统综述的结果应谨慎解读。这是由于纳入的研究之间的高度异质性和可能存在的发表偏倚。这项研究的结果强调了需要更大、更方法学上更稳健的随机对照试验,重点是报告机器人锻炼期间的训练强度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信