Use of a mechanically passive rehabilitation device as a training tool in Vietnam: impact on upper extremity rehabilitation after stroke

Beling, Janna; Zondervan, Daniel K.; Snyder, Ben; Jiggs, G.; Reinkensmeyer, D.J.

doi:10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.283

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Arab Baniasad et al (2014) [ 77 ] It is a conference abstract, possibly lack of control group as well. Badia et al (2008) [ 78 ] It is the same study as the one of Cameirao et al (2008) Basteris et al (2014) [ 79 ] It is a review Beling et al (2015) [ 80 ] It is a conference abstract, and it does not have the intervention of interest Broeren et al (2007) [ 81 ] It does not have the intervention of interest. Cameirao et al (2012) [ 82 ] It does not have the intervention of interest.…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of error-augmentation versus error-reduction paradigms in robotic therapy to enhance upper extremity performance and recovery post-stroke: a systematic review

Liu

Lamontagne

2018

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite upper extremity function playing a crucial role in maintaining one’s independence in activities of daily living, upper extremity impairments remain one of the most prevalent post-stroke deficits. To enhance the upper extremity motor recovery and performance among stroke survivors, two training paradigms in the fields of robotics therapy involving modifying haptic feedback were proposed: the error-augmentation (EA) and error-reduction (ER) paradigms. There is a lack of consensus, however, as to which of the two paradigms yields superior training effects. This systematic review aimed to determine (i) whether EA is more effective than conventional repetitive practice; (ii) whether ER is more effective than conventional repetitive practice and; (iii) whether EA is more effective than ER in improving post-stroke upper extremity motor recovery and performance. The study search and selection process as well as the ratings of methodological quality of the articles were conducted by two authors separately, and the results were then compared and discussed among the two reviewers. Findings were analyzed and synthesized using the level of evidence. By August 1st 2017, 269 articles were found after searching 6 databases, and 13 were selected based on criteria such as sample size, type of participants recruited, type of interventions used, etc. Results suggest, with a moderate level of evidence, that EA is overall more effective than conventional repetitive practice (motor recovery and performance) and ER (motor performance only), while ER appears to be no more effective than conventional repetitive practice. However, intervention effects as measured using clinical outcomes were under most instance not ‘clinically meaningful’ and effect sizes were modest. While stronger evidence is required to further support the efficacy of error modification therapies, the influence of factors related to the delivery of the intervention (such as intensity, duration) and personal factors (such as stroke severity and time of stroke onset) deserves further investigations as well.

show abstract