↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
14 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
234 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
401 Mendeley
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 401 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Unknown 397 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 14%
Student > Bachelor 43 11%
Researcher 34 8%
Other 29 7%
Other 76 19%
Unknown 91 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 21%
Engineering 65 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 14%
Neuroscience 28 7%
Psychology 15 4%
Other 47 12%
Unknown 107 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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
#1,754,551
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,744
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,425
of 297,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#113
of 286 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 297,821 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 286 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 60% of its contemporaries.