Effectiveness of Adjunct Robotic Therapy With a Patient-Guided Suspension System for Stroke Rehabilitation Using a 7-Days-a-Week Model of Care: A Comparison With Conventional Rehabilitation.

The study was a retrospective service evaluation, not a randomized controlled trial, which limits causal inference. Sample size was small (n=100), potentially underpowering the study to detect differences in secondary outcomes. The robotic group received therapy 7 days a week, while conventional therapy was less available on weekends, confounding the effect of the device itself with the effect of increased therapy frequency. No long-term follow-up was conducted to assess sustained benefits. Patients were selected for having at least moderate motor strength (MMT >=3), so results do not apply to more severely impaired stroke patients.

The study was conducted as a service evaluation using deidentified data. The paper does not explicitly state external funding sources or commercial conflicts of interest for the authors, though the device used (Andago) is manufactured by Hocoma.

Do not assume the robotic device itself caused the improved walking assistance scores. The robotic group received therapy 7 days a week, including weekends, whereas the control group's conventional therapy was less frequent on weekends. The benefit may stem from the higher total dose of therapy and continuity of care rather than the specific technology.