Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of robotic-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living and upper limb function after stroke.
Network meta-analysis
Rehabilitation
Robots
Stroke
Upper limb
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 06 2020
30 06 2020
Historique:
received:
28
11
2019
accepted:
25
06
2020
entrez:
2
7
2020
pubmed:
2
7
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of the present study was to to assess the relative effectiveness of the various types of electromechanical-assisted arm devices and approaches after stroke. This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with network meta-analysis. Our primary endpoints were activities of daily living (measured e.g. with Barthel-Index) and hand-arm function (measured e.g. with the Fugl-Meyer Scale for the upper limb), our secondary endpoints were hand-arm strength (measured e.g. with the Motricity Index) and safety. We used conventional arm training as our reference category and compared it with different intervention categories of electromechanical-assisted arm training depending on the therapy approach. We did indirect comparisons between the type of robotic device. We considered the heterogeneity of the studies by means of confidence and prediction intervals. Fifty five randomized controlled trials, including 2654 patients with stroke, met our inclusion criteria. For the primary endpoints activities of daily living and hand-arm function and the secondary endpoint hand-arm strength, none of the interventions achieved statistically significant improvements, taking into account the heterogeneity of the studies. Safety did not differ with regard to the individual interventions of arm rehabilitation after stroke. The outcomes of robotic-assisted arm training were comparable with conventional therapy. Indirect comparisons suggest that no one type of robotic device is any better or worse than any other device, providing no clear evidence to support the selection of specific types of robotic device to promote hand-arm recovery. PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017075411.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The aim of the present study was to to assess the relative effectiveness of the various types of electromechanical-assisted arm devices and approaches after stroke.
METHOD
This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with network meta-analysis. Our primary endpoints were activities of daily living (measured e.g. with Barthel-Index) and hand-arm function (measured e.g. with the Fugl-Meyer Scale for the upper limb), our secondary endpoints were hand-arm strength (measured e.g. with the Motricity Index) and safety. We used conventional arm training as our reference category and compared it with different intervention categories of electromechanical-assisted arm training depending on the therapy approach. We did indirect comparisons between the type of robotic device. We considered the heterogeneity of the studies by means of confidence and prediction intervals.
RESULTS
Fifty five randomized controlled trials, including 2654 patients with stroke, met our inclusion criteria. For the primary endpoints activities of daily living and hand-arm function and the secondary endpoint hand-arm strength, none of the interventions achieved statistically significant improvements, taking into account the heterogeneity of the studies. Safety did not differ with regard to the individual interventions of arm rehabilitation after stroke.
CONCLUSION
The outcomes of robotic-assisted arm training were comparable with conventional therapy. Indirect comparisons suggest that no one type of robotic device is any better or worse than any other device, providing no clear evidence to support the selection of specific types of robotic device to promote hand-arm recovery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017075411.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32605587
doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00715-0
pii: 10.1186/s12984-020-00715-0
pmc: PMC7325016
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
83Références
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008 May;105(18):330-6
pubmed: 19629252
BMJ. 2013 May 14;346:f2914
pubmed: 23674332
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Nov 12;(11):CD010820
pubmed: 25387001
Eur Neurol. 1980;19(6):382-9
pubmed: 7439211
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 03;9:CD006876
pubmed: 30175845
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015 Nov 20;112(47):803-8
pubmed: 26634940
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Feb;31(2):107-121
pubmed: 27597165
Pharm Pract (Granada). 2017 Jan-Mar;15(1):943
pubmed: 28503228
Eur Stroke J. 2018 Dec;3(4):309-336
pubmed: 31236480
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 03;8(10):e76654
pubmed: 24098547
Res Synth Methods. 2012 Jun;3(2):111-25
pubmed: 26062085
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;64(2):163-71
pubmed: 20688472
BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 12;6(7):e010247
pubmed: 27406637
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
pubmed: 1135616
Clin Epidemiol. 2011;3:193-202
pubmed: 21750628
Stat Med. 2010 Mar 30;29(7-8):932-44
pubmed: 20213715