Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Figure 1
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Figure 1

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention, Outcome 1 Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention, Outcome 1 Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention, Outcome 2 Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase: subgroup analysis.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention, Outcome 2 Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase: subgroup analysis.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention, Outcome 3 Impaired arm function at the end of intervention phase: motor function.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention, Outcome 3 Impaired arm function at the end of intervention phase: motor function.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention, Outcome 4 Impaired arm function at the end of intervention phase: motor strength.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention, Outcome 4 Impaired arm function at the end of intervention phase: motor strength.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention, Outcome 5 Acceptability: drop outs during intervention period.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention, Outcome 5 Acceptability: drop outs during intervention period.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Sensitivity analysis: by trial methodology, Outcome 1 Activities of daily living.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Sensitivity analysis: by trial methodology, Outcome 1 Activities of daily living.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Sensitivity analysis: by trial methodology, Outcome 2 Impairment of arm function: motor function.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Sensitivity analysis: by trial methodology, Outcome 2 Impairment of arm function: motor function.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Table 1. Patient characteristics in studies

Study ID

Age, mean (SD) EXP

Age, mean (SD) CON

Time post stroke EXP

Time post stroke CON

Gender EXP

Gender CON

Side paresis EXP

Side paresis CON

Amirabdollahian 2007

67 (7) years

68 (9) years

17 (12) months

31 (22) months

9 F, 7 M

5 F, 10 M

9 L, 7 R

7 L, 8 R

Daly 2005

Not stated

Not stated

> 12 month

> 12 month

0 F, 6 M

3 F, 3 M

Not stated

Not stated

Fasoli 2003

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

Not stated

Fazekas 2007

57 years

56 years

23 months

10 months

8 F, 7 M

5 F, 10 M

7 L, 8 R

6 L, 9 R

Hesse 2005

65 (12) years

64 (12) years

5 (1) weeks

5 (1) weeks

12 F, 10 M

12 F, 10 M

14 L, 8 R

11 L, 11 R

Kahn 2006

56 (12) years

56 (12) years

76 (46) months

103 (48) months

6 F, 4 M

2 F, 7 M

5 L, 5 R

6 L, 3 R

Lum 2002

63 (4) years*

66 (2) years*

30 (6) months*

29 (6) months*

1 F, 12 M

6 F, 8 M

4 L, 9 R

4 L, 10 R

Lum 2006#

67 years

60 years

11 weeks

11 weeks

8 F, 16 M

2 F, 4 M

11 L, 13 R

2 L, 4 R

Masiero 2007

63 (13) years

67 (12) years

Not stated

Not stated

7 F, 10 M

7 F, 11 M

4 L, 11 R

5 L, 10 R

Volpe 2000

62 (2) years*

67 (2) years*

23 (1) days*

26 (1) days*

14 F, 16 M

12 F, 14 M

17 L, 13 R

14 L, 12 R

Volpe 2008

62 (3) years*

60 (3) years*

35 (7) months*

40 (11) months*

3 F, 8 M

3 F, 7 M

5 L, 6 R

5 L, 5 R

*SE instead of SD
#EXP: all robot groups
CON: control group
EXP: experimental group
F: female
L: left
M: male
R: right
SD: standard deviation

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Patient characteristics in studies
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 2. Demographics of studies

Study ID

Stroke severity

Etiology (ISCH/HEM)

Duration of study

Device used

Amirabdollahian 2007

Not stated

Not stated

3 weeks

GENTLE/S

Daly 2005

Not stated

11/1

12 weeks

InMOTION

Fasoli 2003

Not stated

Not stated

6 weeks

MIT‐MANUS

Fazekas 2007

Mean 30 points Functional Independence Measure self‐care

Not stated; also included patients after head trauma

5 weeks

REHA‐ROB

Hesse 2005

Mean 42 of 100 Barthel points

40/4

6 weeks

Bi‐Manu‐Track

Kahn 2006

Not stated

Not stated

8 weeks

ARM‐Guide

Lum 2002

Mean 87 of 100 Barthel points

Not stated

8 weeks

MIME

Lum 2006

Not stated

Not stated

4 weeks

MIME

Masiero 2007

Not stated

Not stated

5 weeks

NeReBot

Volpe 2000

Not stated

49/7

5 weeks

MIT‐MANUS

Volpe 2008

Mean 17 points National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale

20/1

6 weeks

InMOTION2
Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Demographics of studies
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase Show forest plot

6

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 All studies

6

216

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.29 [‐0.47, 1.06]

2 Activities of daily living at the end of intervention phase: subgroup analysis Show forest plot

6

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Particpants treated in the acute and subacute phase of their stroke (within three month)

4

165

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.66 [‐0.11, 1.44]

2.2 Participants treated in the chronic phase (more than three months)

2

51

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.46 [‐1.72, 0.80]

3 Impaired arm function at the end of intervention phase: motor function Show forest plot

7

229

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.24, 1.11]

4 Impaired arm function at the end of intervention phase: motor strength Show forest plot

5

186

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.29, 1.78]

5 Acceptability: drop outs during intervention period Show forest plot

9

279

Risk Difference (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐0.05, 0.06]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Electromechanical and robotic assisted training versus all other intervention
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Sensitivity analysis: by trial methodology

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Activities of daily living Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 All studies with blinded assessors

4

139

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.04 [‐0.82, 0.75]

1.2 All studies with intention‐to‐treat analysis

2

74

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.35 [‐1.75, 1.06]

2 Impairment of arm function: motor function Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 All studies with adequate concealed allocation

2

57

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.59 [‐0.73, 1.92]

2.2 All studies with blinded assessors

5

152

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.76 [0.14, 1.39]

2.3 All studies with intention‐to‐treat analysis

2

74

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.43 [0.86, 1.99]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Sensitivity analysis: by trial methodology
Ir a la tabla de la revisión