A 44% success rate would assuredly be good enough for most stroke patients to try it. Using the Action Research Arm Test for validation is not useful, it is subjective. And did you also not consider that the therapy repetitions was not enough? I suggest you analyze why it didn't meet your criteria and try again. Survivors try movements millions of times and still don't give up. Why do you give up after 1 try?
Robot-Assisted Training Does Not Improve Upper Limb Function After Stroke
MILAN,
Italy -- May 27, 2019 -- Robot-assisted training of the upper limb does
not improve upper limb function, compared with usual care, for patients
with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation after a
stroke, according to a study presented here at the 5th European Stroke
Organisation Conference (ESOC).
“Loss of arm function is a common problem after stroke,” reported Helen Rodgers, MD, Stroke Research Group, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, and colleagues. “We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care.”
Between April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 patients who experienced a stroke were randomised to either robot-assisted training (n = 257), an enhanced upper limb therapy programme (n = 259), or usual care (n = 254).
The robotic gym system and EULT was delivered for 45 minutes, 3 times per week for 12 weeks.
The primary outcome of upper limb function success -- defined using the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) at 3 months -- was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, by 118 (50%) of 234 patients in the EULT group, and by 85 (42%) of the 203 patients in the usual care group.
Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.17; 98.3% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.96) and EULT (aOR = 1.51; 98.3% CI, 0.90-2.51) did not improve upper limb function, and the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR = 0.78; 98.3% CI, 0.48-1.27).
More participants in the robot-assisted training group and EULT group had serious adverse events than in the usual care group, but none were attributable to the intervention.
“[The] results [of RATULS] do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice,” the authors concluded
[Presentation title: A Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing: Robot-Assisted Training: an Enhanced Upper Limb Therapy Programme and Usual Care]
“Loss of arm function is a common problem after stroke,” reported Helen Rodgers, MD, Stroke Research Group, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, and colleagues. “We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care.”
Between April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 patients who experienced a stroke were randomised to either robot-assisted training (n = 257), an enhanced upper limb therapy programme (n = 259), or usual care (n = 254).
The robotic gym system and EULT was delivered for 45 minutes, 3 times per week for 12 weeks.
The primary outcome of upper limb function success -- defined using the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) at 3 months -- was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, by 118 (50%) of 234 patients in the EULT group, and by 85 (42%) of the 203 patients in the usual care group.
Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.17; 98.3% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.96) and EULT (aOR = 1.51; 98.3% CI, 0.90-2.51) did not improve upper limb function, and the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR = 0.78; 98.3% CI, 0.48-1.27).
More participants in the robot-assisted training group and EULT group had serious adverse events than in the usual care group, but none were attributable to the intervention.
“[The] results [of RATULS] do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice,” the authors concluded
[Presentation title: A Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing: Robot-Assisted Training: an Enhanced Upper Limb Therapy Programme and Usual Care]
No comments:
Post a Comment