Validity of Robot-Based Assessments of Upper Extremity Function.
Alison McKenzie, Lucy Dodakian, Jill See and 6 others
PMID 28483654WHAT IT FOUND
Robot-based tests of arm movement correlated strongly with standard clinical measures of stroke impairment and function.
A panel of tests, including speed and targeting tasks, captured deficits across different levels of daily life better than any single test alone.
Key findings
01Robot-based speed and targeting tests showed strong correlations with standard clinical measures of arm impairment and activity.
02The robotic Box and Blocks test identified severe deficits in fewer patients than the clinical version, suggesting it may be less prone to floor effects.
03No single robot test was sufficient on its own; using a combination of speed, wrist targeting, finger targeting, and Box and Blocks tests provided the most consistent assessment.
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 study only included patients with mild language and cognitive deficits, so the results may not apply to patients with more severe impairments. The robot tests were not compared to all possible clinical measures, and the robotic Box and Blocks test differed slightly from the clinical version by not requiring shoulder movement. This was a baseline analysis of a larger trial, so it does not show whether robot tests can track recovery over time.
Declared interests
Dr. Cramer reports financial relationships with several companies outside the submitted work. The other authors have nothing to disclose.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that a single robot test can replace a full clinical evaluation. The study found that no one test was sufficient on its own, and a panel of tests was needed to capture the full range of motor deficits.