↓ 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, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
141 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006876.pub4
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 February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), AMED (1985 to March 2015), SPORTDiscus (1949 to March 2015), PEDro (searched April 2015), Compendex (1972 to March 2015), and Inspec (1969 to March 2015). 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, 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 34 trials (involving 1160 participants) in this update of our review. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training improved activities of daily living scores (SMD 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.64, P = 0.005, I² = 62%), arm function (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.51, P < 0.0001, I² = 36%), and arm muscle strength (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.70, P = 0.04, I² = 72%), but the quality of the evidence was low to very low. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training did not increase the risk of participant drop-out (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03, P = 0.84, I² = 0%) with moderate-quality evidence, and adverse events were rare. People who receive electromechanical and robot-assisted arm and hand training after stroke might improve their activities of daily living, arm and hand function, and arm and hand muscle strength. However, the results must be interpreted with caution because the quality of the evidence was low to very low, and there were variations between the trials in the intensity, duration, and amount of training; type of treatment; and participant characteristics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 17%
Student > Master 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 7 39%
Unspecified 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Unknown 7 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 2019.
All research outputs
#637,825
of 13,657,732 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,020
of 10,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,674
of 281,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#73
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,657,732 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 281,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 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 70% of its contemporaries.