Robot-assisted therapy for upper-limb rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Stroke survivors often experience upper-limb motor deficits and achieve limited motor recovery within six months after the onset of stroke. We aimed to systematically review the effects of robot-assisted therapy (RT) in comparison to usual care on the functional and health outcomes of subacute stroke survivors.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2019 were identified from six electronic databases. Pooled estimates of standardized mean differences for five outcomes, including motor control (primary outcome), functional independence, upper extremity performance, muscle tone, and quality of life were derived by random effects meta-analyses. Assessments of risk of bias in the included RCTs and the quality of evidence for every individual outcomes were conducted following the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs involving 493 participants were included for review. At post-treatment, the effects of RT when compared to usual care on motor control, functional independence, upper extremity performance, muscle tone, and quality of life were nonsignificant (all ps ranged .16 to .86). The quality of this evidence was generally rated as low-to-moderate. Less than three RCTs assessed the treatment effects beyond post-treatment and the results remained nonsignificant.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted therapy produced benefits similar, but not significantly superior, to those from usual care for improving functioning and disability in patients diagnosed with stroke within six months. Apart from using head-to-head comparison to determine the effects of RT in subacute stroke survivors, future studies may explore the possibility of conducting noninferiority or equivalence trials, given that the less labor-intensive RT may offer important advantages over currently available standard care, in terms of improved convenience, better adherence, and lower manpower cost.