Cochrane · systematic review · CD006876
Electromechanical and robot‐assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke
Mehrholz, J, Pohl, M, Platz, T, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
6
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 6 · 100%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyElectromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke
Population: people with stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase Measures of activities. Scale from: ‐infinity to infinity. Electromechanical and robotic assisted training vs all other intervention | no estimate extracted | 24 studies · 957 participants | High |
Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase: subgroup analysis comparing acute and chronic phase ‐ Participants treated in the acute and subacute phase of their stroke (within 3 months) Measures of activities. Scale from: ‐infinity... Electromechanical and robotic assisted training vs all other intervention | no estimate extracted | 13 studies · 532 participants | High |
Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase: subgroup analysis comparing acute and chronic phase ‐ Participants treated in the chronic phase (more than 3 months) Measures of activity. Scale from: ‐infinity to infinity. Electromechanical and robotic assisted training vs all other intervention | no estimate extracted | 11 studies · 425 participants | High |
Arm function at the end of intervention phase Upper Extremity Fugl‐Meyer Assessment (UE‐FM). Scale from: ‐infinity to infinity. Electromechanical and robotic assisted training vs all other intervention | no estimate extracted | 41 studies · 1452 participants | High |
Arm muscle strength at the end of intervention phase Measures of arm muscle strength. Scale from: ‐infinity to infinity. Electromechanical and robotic assisted training vs all other intervention | no estimate extracted | 23 studies · 826 participants | High |
Acceptability: drop‐outs during intervention period Numbers of dropouts and adverse events Electromechanical and robotic assisted training vs all other intervention | no estimate extracted | 45 studies · 1619 participants | High |
Electromechanical and robotic‐assisted training versus all other interventions for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke
Population: people after stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase ‐ all studies Measures of activities. Scale from: 0 to inf Electromechanical and robotic‐assisted training vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 18 studies · 717 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase: subgroup analysis comparing acute and chronic phase ‐ particpants treated in the acute and subacute phase of their stroke (within 3 months) Measures of activities. Scale from: 0 to inf Electromechanical and robotic‐assisted training vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 320 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase: subgroup analysis comparing acute and chronic phase ‐ participants treated in the chronic phase (more than 3 months) Measures of activities. Scale from: 0 to inf Electromechanical and robotic‐assisted training vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 397 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Arm function at the end of intervention phase Measures of arm function. Scale from: 0 to inf Electromechanical and robotic‐assisted training vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 31 studies · 1078 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Arm muscle strength at the end of intervention phase Measures of arm muscle strength. Scale from: 0 to inf Electromechanical and robotic‐assisted training vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 16 studies · 568 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Acceptability: dropouts during intervention period Rate of dropouts and adverse events Electromechanical and robotic‐assisted training vs all other interventions | no estimate extracted | 34 studies · 1160 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |