A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Exoskeleton end-effector robot-assisted therapy for finger-hand motor recovery in stroke survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Introduction: The growing number of stroke survivors with residual hand disabilities requires the development of efficient recovery therapy, and robotic rehabilitation can play an important role.

Objective: The study aims to compare the relative effects of end-effector (EE) and exoskeleton (EXO) hand devices in motor recovery of patients with finger-hand motor impairment stroke.

Methods: We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through search in database on PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane library until October 2020. We included as outcomes: motricity index (MI), quick version of disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire, and Fugl-Meyer assessment for upper extremity (FMAUE). We performed a systematic review, a meta-analysis, and a surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA).

Results: We included five RTCs and 149 subjects. MI showed a signifìcant improvement ( < .05) in robotic intervention group compared to control group (effect size, ES: 9.47; confidence interval, CI: 3.91, 15.03). QuickDASH reported a significant reduction ( < .05) in EXO group (ES: -6.71; CI: -9.17, -4.25). FMAUE showed a significant improvement ( < .05) in the EE group (ES:3; CI:1.97, 4.04). SUCRA analysis of MI demonstrated that robotic interventions are more likely to be the best option for motor recovery (97.3% of probability EXO; 48.3% EE; 4.4% control).

Conclusion: Despite the limited number of studies included, exoskeleton robotic devices might be a better option than end-effector devices in the treatment of fingers motor impairment in stroke patients. Further studies are still needed to confirm the findings and should focus on a direct comparison of the two devices.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2021.1967657DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

finger-hand motor
8
motor recovery
8
stroke survivors
8
systematic review
8
review meta-analysis
8
exoskeleton end-effector
4
end-effector robot-assisted
4
robot-assisted therapy
4
therapy finger-hand
4
recovery stroke
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!