Upper limb robotic rehabilitation following stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating efficacy and the influence of device features and program parameters.
Kate Boardsworth, Usman Rashid, Sharon Olsen and 4 others
PMID 40671078WHAT IT FOUND
Dose-matched robotic therapy gave a tiny, short-lived boost to arm capacity that patients did not feel in daily life.
It did not beat conventional therapy for activities. Games and feedback added nothing when a therapist supervised the session.
Key findings
01Robotic rehabilitation showed a statistically significant but small improvement in upper limb capacity immediately after treatment, which was not maintained at follow-up.
02There was no significant difference between robotic and conventional rehabilitation for activities of daily living at either post-intervention or follow-up.
03Subgroup analyses indicated that devices providing partial assistance, mobilising the distal upper limb, and using a single device were associated with larger effects on upper limb capacity.
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
Only one study had a low overall risk of bias; most had concerns regarding randomisation, measurement, or reporting. The review was limited to English-language articles. Many included studies did not adequately report device features or intervention parameters, which restricted the depth of subgroup analysis. The small effect size for upper limb capacity was not clinically meaningful. Outcome measures varied, and some global measures may have been less sensitive to change than specific ones, potentially skewing subgroup results.
Declared interests
The text does not list specific funding sources or author conflicts of interest in the provided excerpts.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the statistically significant improvement in upper limb capacity as a clinically useful outcome. The effect size was small, not maintained at follow-up, and did not translate to any improvement in the patient's ability to perform daily activities.