{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,28]],"date-time":"2026-10-28T16:53:57Z","timestamp":1793206437390,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":32,"publisher":"Aboutscience Srl","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,23]],"date-time":"2025-05-23T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1747958400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Arch. Physioter"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Introduction: Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) provide evidence on the effects of robot-assisted training (RAT) for upper limb impairments in stroke subjects; however, evidence on the clinical relevance of these differences is lacking. This study aimed to perform a systematic review with meta-analyses of RCTs on clinical relevance, expressed as minimal clinically important difference (MCID), of RAT to improve independence in activities of daily living, arm function, and impairments in patients with stroke.Methods: Four databases were searched. RCTs investigating RAT aimed at recovering motor and functional skills of the upper limb in adult post-stroke patients were included. MCID values were retrieved from specific databases. Two independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality. Meta-analyses for both statistical significance and clinical relevance were performed. Clinical relevance was expressed as a standardized MCID overall score (SMOS) for each outcome measure, calculated as the difference between mean outcome measures in experimental and control groups divided by corresponding MCID, when available.Results: Eighty-five studies were included. Conventional meta-analyses showed that RAT, compared to control, had significant effects in the domains of activities of daily living, dexterity, arm function, and strength, but not on pain. Meta-analyses for clinical relevance reported non-clinically relevant differences between groups for all domains.Conclusion: RAT produces some significant improvements for the upper limb, but these differences are not clinically relevant when compared to other therapies. Improvements in using the RAT in clinical practice may not be more clinically relevant than other therapies for stroke patients.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.33393\/aop.2025.3209","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,23]],"date-time":"2025-05-23T14:14:46Z","timestamp":1748009686000},"page":"118-130","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":4,"title":["Clinical relevance of the effects of robotic rehabilitation for upper limb recovery after stroke in randomized studies: a systematic review with meta-analysis"],"prefix":"10.33393","author":[{"given":"Sofia","family":"Verola","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Alessandro","family":"Ugolini","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Leonardo","family":"Pellicciari","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mauro","family":"Di Bari","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Matteo","family":"Paci","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"18642","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,23]]},"reference":[{"key":"16771","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"1. Tal J. Strategy and statistics in clinical trials: a non-statisticians guide to thinking, designing and executing. Academic Press; 2011.","DOI":"10.1016\/B978-0-12-386909-8.00006-4"},{"key":"16772","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"2. Kamper SJ. Interpreting outcomes 1 \u2014 change and difference: linking evidence to practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(5):357-358. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2519\/jospt.2019.0703 PMID:31039687","DOI":"10.2519\/jospt.2019.0703"},{"key":"16773","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"3. Kamper SJ. Interpreting outcomes 2 \u2014 statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness: linking evidence to practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(7):559-560. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2519\/jospt.2019.0704 PMID:31258048","DOI":"10.2519\/jospt.2019.0704"},{"key":"16774","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"4. de Vet HC, Terluin B, Knol DL, et al. Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied \u201cminimally important change\u201d values. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):37-45. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2009.03.011 PMID:19540720","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2009.03.011"},{"key":"16775","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"5. Qin Z, Zhu Y, Shi DD, et al. The gap between statistical and clinical significance: time to pay attention to clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome measures of insomnia. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024;24(1):177. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12874-024-02297-0 PMID:39118002","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-024-02297-0"},{"key":"16776","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"6. Morris JH, van Wijck F, Joice S, et al. Predicting health related quality of life 6 months after stroke: the role of anxiety and upper limb dysfunction. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(4):291-299. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3109\/09638288.2012.691942 PMID:22691224","DOI":"10.3109\/09638288.2012.691942"},{"key":"16777","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"7. Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, et al. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;9(9):CD006876. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/14651858.CD006876.pub5 PMID:30175845","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD006876.pub5"},{"key":"16778","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"8. Ferreira FMRM, Chaves MEA, Oliveira VC, et al. Effectiveness of robot therapy on body function and structure in people with limited upper limb function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0200330. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0200330 PMID:30001417","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0200330"},{"key":"16779","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"9. Zhang L, Jia G, Ma J, et al. Short and long-term effects of robot-assisted therapy on upper limb motor function and activity of daily living in patients post-stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022;19(1):76. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12984-022-01058-8 PMID:35864524","DOI":"10.1186\/s12984-022-01058-8"},{"key":"16780","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"10. Chien, WT, Chong YY. Robot-assisted therapy for upper-limb rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav. 2020;10(8):e01742. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/brb3.1742","DOI":"10.1002\/brb3.1742"},{"key":"16781","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"11. Mehrholz J, Pollock A, Pohl M, et al. Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of robotic-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living and upper limb function after stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020;17(1):83. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12984-020-00715-0 PMID:32605587","DOI":"10.1186\/s12984-020-00715-0"},{"key":"16782","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"12. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.n71 PMID:33782057","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.n71"},{"key":"16783","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"13. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, et al. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713-721. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/ptj\/83.8.713 PMID:12882612","DOI":"10.1093\/ptj\/83.8.713"},{"key":"16784","unstructured":"14. Higgins JPT. T.J., Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Online www.training.cochrane.org\/handbook . (Accessed July 2024)"},{"key":"16785","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"15. Straudi S, Baluardo L, Arienti C, et al. Effectiveness of robot-assisted arm therapy in stroke rehabilitation: an overview of systematic reviews. NeuroRehabilitation. 2022;51(4):559-576. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/NRE-220027 PMID:36530097","DOI":"10.3233\/NRE-220027"},{"key":"16786","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"16. Brusola G, Garcia E, Albosta M, et al. Effectiveness of physical therapy interventions on post-stroke spasticity: an umbrella review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2023;52(3):349-363. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/NRE-220275 PMID:36806522","DOI":"10.3233\/NRE-220275"},{"key":"16787","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"17. Yang X, Shi X, Xue X, et al. Efficacy of robot-assisted training on rehabilitation of upper limb function in patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2023;104(9):1498-1513. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.apmr.2023.02.004 PMID:36868494","DOI":"10.1016\/j.apmr.2023.02.004"},{"key":"16788","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"18. Verhagen A, Stubbs PW, Mehta P, et al. Comparison between 2000 and 2018 on the reporting of statistical significance and clinical relevance in physiotherapy clinical trials in six major physiotherapy journals: a meta-research design. BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e054875. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2021-054875 PMID:34980625","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2021-054875"},{"key":"16789","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"19. van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Hayden J, et al. Statistical significance versus clinical importance: trials on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain as example. Spine. 2007;32(16):1785-1790. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3180b9ef49 PMID:17632400","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0b013e3180b9ef49"},{"key":"16790","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"20. Gianola S, Castellini G, Corbetta D, et al. Rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials for low back pain: proof of statistical significance often is not relevant. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):127. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12955-019-1196-8 PMID:31331343","DOI":"10.1186\/s12955-019-1196-8"},{"key":"16791","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"21. Cummings P. Arguments for and against standardized mean differences (effect sizes). Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(7):592-596. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/archpediatrics.2011.97 PMID:21727271","DOI":"10.1001\/archpediatrics.2011.97"},{"key":"16792","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"22. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14(2):109-114. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/00002281-200203000-00006 PMID:11845014","DOI":"10.1097\/00002281-200203000-00006"},{"key":"16793","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"23. Dekker J, de Boer M, Ostelo R. Minimal important change and difference in health outcome: an overview of approaches, concepts, and methods. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2024;32(1):8-17. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.joca.2023.09.002 PMID:37714259","DOI":"10.1016\/j.joca.2023.09.002"},{"key":"16794","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"24. Paci M, Risaliti F, Pellicciari L, Reporting of \"usual care\" as the control group in randomized clinical trials of physiotherapy interventions for multiple sclerosis is poor: a systematic review. 2022;43(9):5207-5216. https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s10072-022-06167-9 Crossref","DOI":"10.1007\/s10072-022-06167-9"},{"key":"16795","unstructured":"https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/35639218\/ PubMed"},{"key":"16796","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"25. Arienti C, Buraschi R, Pollet J, et al. A systematic review opens the black box of \u201cusual care\u201d in stroke rehabilitation control groups and finds a black hole. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2022;58(4):520-529. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.23736\/S1973-9087.22.07413-5 PMID:35634889","DOI":"10.23736\/S1973-9087.22.07413-5"},{"key":"16797","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"26. Lohse KR, Pathania A, Wegman R, et al. On the reporting of experimental and control therapies in stroke rehabilitation trials: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(7):1424-1432. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.apmr.2017.12.024 PMID:29412168","DOI":"10.1016\/j.apmr.2017.12.024"},{"key":"16798","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"27. Morone G, Palomba A, Martino Cinnera A, et al. Systematic review of guidelines to identify recommendations for upper limb robotic rehabilitation after stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2021;57(2):238-245. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.23736\/S1973-9087.21.06625-9 PMID:33491943","DOI":"10.23736\/S1973-9087.21.06625-9"},{"key":"16799","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"28. Lang CE, Lohse KR, Birkenmeier RL. Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: prescribing motor therapy after stroke. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28(6):549-555. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/WCO.0000000000000256 PMID:26402404","DOI":"10.1097\/WCO.0000000000000256"},{"key":"16800","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"29. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348(mar07 3):g1687. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.g1687 PMID:24609605","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.g1687"},{"key":"16801","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"30. Slade SC, Dionne CE, Underwood M, et al. Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT): explanation and elaboration statement. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(23):1428-1437. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bjsports-2016-096651 PMID:27707738","DOI":"10.1136\/bjsports-2016-096651"},{"key":"16802","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"31. Podurgiel J, Piscitelli D, Denegar C. Challenges in applying minimal clinically important difference: a critical review. Int J Rehabil Res. 2024;47(1):10-19. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/MRR.0000000000000613 PMID:38250825","DOI":"10.1097\/MRR.0000000000000613"}],"container-title":["Archives of Physiotherapy"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.archivesofphysiotherapy.com\/index.php\/aop\/article\/download\/3209\/4009","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.archivesofphysiotherapy.com\/index.php\/aop\/article\/download\/3209\/4010","content-type":"application\/epub+zip","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.archivesofphysiotherapy.com\/index.php\/aop\/article\/download\/3209\/4009","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,23]],"date-time":"2025-05-23T14:14:59Z","timestamp":1748009699000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.archivesofphysiotherapy.com\/index.php\/aop\/article\/view\/3209"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,23]]},"references-count":32,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33393\/aop.2025.3209","relation":{},"ISSN":["2057-0082","2057-0082"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2057-0082","type":"electronic"},{"value":"2057-0082","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,5,23]]}}}