MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783370472 · doi:10.1080/17483107.2018.1425747

Robot-assisted upper extremity rehabilitation for cervical spinal cord injuries: a systematic scoping review

2018· article· en· W2783370472 on OpenAlexafffund
Hardeep Singh, Janelle Unger, José Zariffa, Maureen Pakosh, Susan Jaglal, B. Catharine Craven, Kristin E. Musselman

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity of TorontoOntario Neurotrauma FoundationCraig H. Neilsen Foundation
KeywordsCINAHLBlindingRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPsycINFOPhysical therapyPsychological interventionChecklistSystematic reviewPsychologyNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstact Purpose: To provide an overview of the feasibility and outcomes of robotic-assisted upper extremity training for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI), and to identify gaps in current research and articulate future research directions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CCTR, CDSR, CINAHL and PubMed on June 7, 2017. Search terms included 3 themes: (1) robotics; (2) SCI; (3) upper extremity. Studies using robots for upper extremity rehabilitation among individuals with cervical SCI were included. Identified articles were independently reviewed by two researchers and compared to pre-specified criteria. Disagreements regarding article inclusion were resolved through discussion. The modified Downs and Black checklist was used to assess article quality. Participant characteristics, study and intervention details, training outcomes, robot features, study limitations and recommendations for future studies were abstracted from included articles. RESULTS: Twelve articles (one randomized clinical trial, six case series, five case studies) met the inclusion criteria. Five robots were exoskeletons and three were end-effectors. Sample sizes ranged from 1 to 17 subjects. Articles had variable quality, with quality scores ranging from 8 to 20. Studies had a low internal validity primarily from lack of blinding or a control group. Individuals with mild-moderate impairments showed the greatest improvements on body structure/function and performance-level measures. This review is limited by the small number of articles, low-sample sizes and the diversity of devices and their associated training protocols, and outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests robot-assisted interventions are safe, feasible and can reduce active assistance provided by therapists. Implications for rehabilitation Robot-assisted upper extremity training for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury is safe, feasible and can reduce hands-on assistance provided by therapists. Future research in robotics rehabilitation with individuals with spinal cord injury is needed to determine the optimal device and training protocol as well as effectiveness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207