Is robot-assisted therapy effective in upper extremity recovery in early stage stroke? -a systematic literature review.
GaYeong Kim, SeungYeop Lim, HyunJong Kim and 4 others
PMID 28626337WHAT IT FOUND
Robot-assisted therapy matched conventional therapy for upper limb recovery in early stroke, but most studies added robots to usual care rather than replacing it.
The benefit of the robot itself remains unclear, though 3D devices may aid motor function.
Key findings
01Robot-assisted therapy showed similar treatment effectiveness compared with conventional therapy in the reviewed studies.
02Only one included study compared robot-assisted therapy directly against conventional therapy; the other five combined robot therapy with usual care.
03Robots with three-dimensional movement and a high degree of freedom were reported to have positive effects on upper extremity motor function recovery.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The independent effect of robot-assisted therapy cannot be determined because five of the six studies combined it with conventional therapy instead of comparing it directly. The total number of participants across all studies was small (278), and most individual trials had low sample sizes, limiting generalizability. The review included only studies published in English, which may introduce language bias. Therapists could not be blinded to the treatment allocation in any of the included studies, which may introduce performance bias.
Declared interests
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that robot-assisted therapy is superior to conventional therapy. Most included studies added robots to usual care rather than replacing it, so the robot's specific benefit over standard treatment remains unproven.