Article | Study design | Number of participants: experimental group (E) and control group (C) | Participants characteristics | Equipment | Experimental Protocol | Outcomes and assessment tools | Main results and interpretation (means ± standard deviation) | Effect size (Cohen’s d) | Quality of study (PEDro score) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bouchard et al. [61] | Randomized comparative experiment. Trial not registered. | 34 in total EA group: 17 haptic guidance (ER) group: 17 | ER group: age (mean) = 67 ± 7, months since stroke (mean) = 63 ± 54 AMFMa = 63 ± 8 EA group: age (mean) = 67 ± 6, months since stroke (mean) = 78 ± 64 AMFM = 60 ± 10 | TEO, a robotic device with 10-degree flexion/ extension of the left/ right wrist, actuated by Dynamixel MX-106 servomotor | Experimental task: flex paretic wrist at the right time. ER group: the robotic device adjusted its activation time to reduce the timing errors (k value decreased by 90%). EA group: the opposite, the timing errors were increased (k value increased by 90%) Training parameters: Four phases of baseline assess-ment (140 trials) before the intervention. 75 trials during the inter-vention, and 40 trials at the reten-tion phase. | Kinematic: Absolute timing errors (ms) | A significant decrease of 1.1 ± 5.1 ms in absolute timing errors in the ER group (p = 0.032), and a non-significant increase of 0.4 ± 6.0 in the EA group (p = 0.45). A between group comparison revealed no significant difference between the two groups (95% confidence interval: − 1.2 to 4.3) | 0.27 (small effect size) | 8/10, high quality |
Cesqui et al. [58] | Crossover design. Trial not registered | 15 in total EA group: 6 ER group: 9 (before cross-over) | Ages: 20–71 years (mean = 42 ± 17) 8 males and 7 females, all participants suffered from stroke (stages unknown) CMb: First EA group: mean = 5 ± 0.89 First ER group: mean = 4 ± 0.86 | InMotion2 | Experimental tasks: reaching targets in a plane. EA group: received divergent field (negative elastic force) ER group: received active assistance Training parameters: One hour per session, ten sessions per therapy cycle which lasted two weeks before subjects switched groups. | Kinematic: Metric indexes (movement smoothness, movement accuracy, path length ratio, movement direction variability) Clinical: MSSc, MASd, ROM Shoulder and Elbow | MAS: in the first cycle, ER showed more improvement than EA (3.5 ± 2.8 vs 1.8 ± 3.6), but level of significance not provided. In the second cycle, ER still showed more improvement than EA (0.9 ± 3.5 vs 0.3 ± 2.7), but level of significance not provided. MSS: in the first cycle, ER showed more improvement than EA (2.9 ± 7.1 vs 1.8 ± 5.2), but level of significance not provided. In the second cycle, ER still showed more improvement than EA (1.0 ± 4.8 vs 0.6 ± 6.4), but level of significance not provided. ROMs: no significant changes (numerical values not provided) Metric indexes: no numerical values reported, so unable to calculate differences between groups. The authors reported final metric indexes differences were not significant in the group started with EA (F = 1.61, p = 0.194) but in the group started with ER, there was a significant improvement indexes (F = 9,46, p = 0.006). They did not mention the comparison of metric indexes between groups. | MAS: first cycle 0.53 (medium effect). second cycle 0.19 (very small effect). MSS: first cycle 0.18 (very small effect). second cycle 0.09 (very small effect). | 3/10, poor quality |
Patton et al. [24] | Quasi-experimental design. Trial not registered | 31 in total, Stroke Group EA = 9 ER = 9 C = 9 Healthy Group EA = 2 ER = 2 | Ages = 30–72 years (EA: mean = 54.3 ± 8.8;ER: mean = 48.0 ± 8.4;Control: mean = 51.2 ± 6.1), besides 4 healthy subjects, all participants suffered from a chronic stroke (16–173 months, EA: mean = 69.1 ± 50.2; ER: mean = 109.3 ± 45.8; Control: mean = 70.8 ± 60.4), FM: EA group mean = 40.2 ± 13.7 ER group mean = 25.5 ± 10.9 Control group mean = 37.3 ± 16.2 | Free-extremity robot with two degrees of freedom. The participant’s arm was supported by a low-friction, low-impedance mechanism | Experimental tasks: reaching EA group: both stroke and healthy EA groups received force field that magnified errors (EA) ER group: both stroke and healthy ER groups received force field that reduced error. In the stroke control group, the 9 participants with stroke did not receive interfering forces. Training parameters: One single session of 834 movements. | Kinematic: initial direction error (degrees). Adaptation capacity | The stroke EA group showed improvement at initial direction error (8.9 ± 10.9) while the stroke ER group showed deterioration (− 6.8 ± 9.6). The different between EA and ER groups was significant [F(1,13) = 4.29, p < 0.001]. Stroke subjects showed less adaptation capacity than healthy subjects (26% less) | Initial direction error: 1.53 (very large effect) | 1/10, poor quality |
Tropea et al. [54] | Crossover randomized controlled trial. Trial not registered | 18 in total EA = 9 ER = 9 (before cross-over) | Ages: 21–71 (EA: mean = 49.7± 18.7; ER: mean = 44.9 ± 15.9), 9 males and 9 females, all participants suffered from a chronic stroke (mean/SD unknown), CM: First EA group: mean = 4.9 ± 0.9 First ER group: mean = 4.2 ± 1.0 | InMotion2 robotic system | Experimental tasks: reaching targets in a plane. EA group: received divergent force field ER group: received active assist during practice Training parameters: Two weeks of training per cycle, and two cycles in total. After each cycle, subjects switch groups. | Kinematic: the trajectory of the end-effector Clinical: MAS, MSS | MAS: in the first cycle, ER group showed more improvement than EA (2.9 ± 3.2 vs 1.2 ± 3.2), but not significantly. In the second cycle, ER group still showed more improvement than EA (1.4 ± 1.2 vs 0.7 ± 2.3), but not significantly. MSS: in the first cycle, ER group showed more improvement than EA (2.2 ± 2.0 vs 0.8 ± 3.5), but not significantly. In the second cycle, ER group still showed more improvement than EA (1.4 ± 1.3 vs 1.1 ± 1.1), but not significantly. Trajectory of end-effector: no numerical values reported, but authors stated that EA group had significantly straighter (p = 0.028) as well as smoother (p = 0.031) trajectory than ER group | MAS: first cycle 0.53 (medium effect) Second cycle 0.40 (small effect) MSS: first cycle 0.51 (medium effect) Second cycle 0.25 (small effect) | 6/10, high quality |