Question · asked by 1 review
Electromechanical and robotic assisted training vs other interventions: acceptability and safety of treadmill training ‐ No intervention control group (co‐interventions were not similar in both groups) Number of adverse events and drop‐outs
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Electromechanical and robotic assisted training vs all other intervention Acceptability: drop‐outs during intervention period Numbers of dropouts and adverse events · people with stroke Electromechanical and robot‐assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function,… (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 45 studies · 1619 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electromechanical and robot‐assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.