↓ Skip to main content

Electromechanical and robot‐assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
259 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
688 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Electromechanical and robot‐assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006876.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Mehrholz, Marcus Pohl, Thomas Platz, Joachim Kugler, Bernhard Elsner

Abstract

Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training devices are used in rehabilitation, and may help to improve arm function after stroke. To assess the effectiveness of electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength in people after stroke. We also assessed the acceptability and safety of the therapy. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trials Register (last searched January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2018), Embase (1980 to January 2018), CINAHL (1982 to January 2018), AMED (1985 to January 2018), SPORTDiscus (1949 to January 2018), PEDro (searched February 2018), Compendex (1972 to January 2018), and Inspec (1969 to January 2018). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trialists, experts, and researchers in our field, as well as manufacturers of commercial devices. Randomised controlled trials comparing electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for recovery of arm function with other rehabilitation or placebo interventions, or no treatment, for people after stroke. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence, and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables and risk differences (RDs) for dichotomous variables. We included 45 trials (involving 1619 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training improved activities of daily living scores (SMD 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.52, P = 0.0005; I² = 59%; 24 studies, 957 participants, high-quality evidence), arm function (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.46, P < 0.0001, I² = 36%, 41 studies, 1452 participants, high-quality evidence), and arm muscle strength (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.77, P = 0.003, I² = 76%, 23 studies, 826 participants, high-quality evidence). Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of participant dropout (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, P = 0.93, I² = 0%, 45 studies, 1619 participants, high-quality evidence), and adverse events were rare. People who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training after stroke might improve their activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution although the quality of the evidence was high, because there were variations between the trials in: the intensity, duration, and amount of training; type of treatment; participant characteristics; and measurements used.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 688 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 684 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 101 15%
Student > Bachelor 86 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 9%
Researcher 63 9%
Other 43 6%
Other 107 16%
Unknown 223 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 106 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 103 15%
Engineering 88 13%
Neuroscience 44 6%
Sports and Recreations 19 3%
Other 74 11%
Unknown 254 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,228,053
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,664
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,600
of 346,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#100
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.