The effects of error-augmentation versus error-reduction paradigms in robotic therapy to enhance upper extremity performance and recovery post-stroke: a systematic review.
Le Yu Liu, Youlin Li, Anouk Lamontagne
PMID 29973250WHAT IT FOUND
Error augmentation in robotic therapy improved movement quality more than standard practice, but gains did not reach the threshold for clinically meaningful change.
Error reduction showed no clear benefit over standard practice.
Key findings
01Error augmentation was more effective than standard repetitive practice for improving upper extremity impairments and movement control, but these statistical gains did not meet the minimal clinically important difference.
02Error reduction was not more effective than standard repetitive practice for improving upper extremity impairments or functional disability.
03When compared directly, error augmentation was superior to error reduction only for kinematic outcomes like trajectory smoothness, not for clinical measures of function.
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
Most included studies had small sample sizes and short training periods, leading to a high risk of bias. Allocation concealment was frequently not reported or high risk of bias. The review focused on chronic stroke survivors, so results may not apply to acute stroke. Many studies did not report standard deviations, requiring estimation for effect size calculations. A significant portion of the EA studies came from a single research group, which may introduce bias. The review did not include meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in outcomes and study designs.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by non-U.S. government funding. The authors noted a potential bias as they planned to conduct future experimental studies on EA and ER.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the statistical significance of movement quality improvements as evidence of functional recovery. The review explicitly states that gains in clinical outcomes did not meet the minimal clinically important difference, meaning patients may not notice a change in their daily abilities despite better robot-measured trajectories.