↓ 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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
511 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 511 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 4 <1%
India 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 495 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 98 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 16%
Researcher 64 13%
Student > Bachelor 58 11%
Unspecified 54 11%
Other 156 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 143 28%
Engineering 100 20%
Unspecified 78 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 60 12%
Neuroscience 40 8%
Other 90 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 12 June 2019.
All research outputs
#676,458
of 13,291,899 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,183
of 10,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,869
of 264,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#46
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,291,899 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 264,730 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 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 68% of its contemporaries.