Robot-Assisted Arm Training versus Therapist-Mediated Training after Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract EN

Background.

More than two-thirds of stroke patients have arm motor impairments and function deficits on hospital admission, leading to diminished quality of life and reduced social participation.

Robot-assisted training (RAT) is a promising rehabilitation program for upper extremity while its effect is still controversial due to heterogeneity in clinical trials.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare robot-assisted training (RAT) versus therapist-mediated training (TMT) for arm rehabilitation after stroke.

Methods.

We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane EBM Reviews, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).

Studies of moderate or high methodological quality (PEDro score ≥4) were included and analyzed.

We assessed the effects of RAT versus TMT for arm rehabilitation after stroke with testing the noninferiority of RAT.

A small effect size of −2 score for mean difference in Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) and Cohen’s d = −0.2 for standardized mean difference (SMD) were set as noninferiority margin.

Results.

Thirty-five trials with 2241 participants met inclusion criteria.

The effect size for arm motor impairment, capacity, activities of daily living, and social participation were 0.763 (WMD, 95% CI: 0.404 to 1.123), 0.109 (SMD, 95% CI: −0.066 to 0.284), 0.049 (SMD, 95% CI: −0.055 to 0.17), and −0.061 (SMD, 95% CI: −0.196 to 0.075), respectively.

Conclusion.

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that robot-assisted training was slightly superior in motor impairment recovery and noninferior to therapist-mediated training in improving arm capacity, activities of daily living, and social participation, which supported the use of RAT in clinical practice.