The diagnostic levels of evidence of instrumented devices for measuring viscoelastic joint properties and spasticity; a systematic review.
Levinia Lara van der Velden, Maaike Anna Catharina de Koff, Gerard Maria Ribbers and 1 others
PMID 35148805WHAT IT FOUND
No study showed that robotic devices improve patient care.
The highest evidence level found was for basic comparisons, not diagnostic accuracy. Clinicians should not assume these tools are ready for routine practice or that they change outcomes.
Key findings
01None of the included studies tested the robotic devices for diagnostic accuracy or clinical added value.
02The highest level of evidence found was Level II, which involves comparing test results with reference tests or controls, but does not prove the test helps patients.
03The review included 59 articles, with a total of 1080 patients and 504 controls.
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 level of evidence classification used was not validated. The review did not assess the quality of the included studies or their psychometric properties. Only studies using kinetic measurements (force/angle) were included, excluding functional measures. The cutoff for Level 0 (fewer than 10 participants) was a choice by the authors.
Declared interests
Funding was provided by Health Holland. No other conflicts of interest are reported in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret Level II evidence as proof that robotic devices are accurate or useful for patient care. Level II only means the device was compared to a reference test or controls, not that it improves diagnosis or outcomes.