29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Loss of arm function is a common problem after stroke. Robot-assisted training might improve arm function and activities of daily living. We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care.

          Methods

          RATULS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at four UK centres. Stroke patients aged at least 18 years with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years after their first stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive robot-assisted training, EULT, or usual care. Robot-assisted training and EULT were provided for 45 min, three times per week for 12 weeks. Randomisation was internet-based using permuted block sequences. Treatment allocation was masked from outcome assessors but not from participants or therapists. The primary outcome was upper limb function success (defined using the Action Research Arm Test [ARAT]) at 3 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN69371850.

          Findings

          Between April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either robot-assisted training (n=257), EULT (n=259), or usual care (n=254). The primary outcome of ARAT success was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, 118 (50%) of 234 in the EULT group, and 85 (42%) of 203 in the usual care group. Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·17 [98·3% CI 0·70–1·96]) and EULT (aOR 1·51 [0·90–2·51]) did not improve upper limb function; the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR 0·78 [0·48–1·27]). More participants in the robot-assisted training group (39 [15%] of 257) and EULT group (33 [13%] of 259) had serious adverse events than in the usual care group (20 [8%] of 254), but none were attributable to the intervention.

          Interpretation

          Robot-assisted training and EULT did not improve upper limb function after stroke compared with usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation. These results do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice.

          Funding

          National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research.

          R C Lyle (1981)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale.

            To assess multiple psychometric characteristics of a new stroke outcome measure, the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), using Rasch analysis, and to identify and remove misfitting items from the 8 domains that comprise the SIS. Secondary analysis of 3-month outcomes for the Glycine Antagonist in Neuroprotection (GAIN) Americas randomized stroke trial. A multicenter randomized trial performed in 132 centers in the United States and Canada. A total of 696 individuals with stroke who were community-dwelling and independent prior to acute stroke. Not applicable. Rasch analysis was performed using WINSTEPS, version 3.31, to evaluate 4 psychometric characteristics of the SIS: (1) unidimensionality or fit (the extent to which items measure a single construct), (2) targeting (the extent to which the items are of appropriate difficulty for the sample), (3) item difficulty (the ordering of items from least to most difficult to perform), and (4) separation (the extent to which the items distinguish distinct levels of functioning within the sample). (1) Within each domain, most of the items measured a single construct. Only 3 items misfit the constructs and were deleted ("add and subtract numbers," "get up from a chair," "feel emotionally connected") and 2 items ("handle money," "manage money") misfit the combined physical domain. These items were deleted to create SIS, version 3.0. (2) Overall, the items are well targeted to the sample. The physical and participation domains have a wide range of items that capture difficulties that most individuals with stroke experience in physical and role functions, while the memory, emotion, and communication domains include items that capture limitations in the most impaired patients. (3) The order of items from less to more difficult was clinically meaningful. (4) The individual physical domains differentiated at least 3 (high, average, low) levels of functioning and the composite physical domain differentiated more than 4 levels of functioning. However, because difficulties with communication, memory, and emotion were not as frequently reported and difficulties with hand function were more frequently reported, these domains only differentiated 2 (high, low) to 3 (high, average, low) strata of patients. Time from stroke onset to administration of the SIS had little effect on item functioning. Rasch analysis further established the validity of the SIS. The domains are unidimensional, the items have an excellent range of difficulty, and the domain scores differentiated patients into multiple strata. The activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living, mobility, strength, composite physical, and participation domains have the most robust psychometric characteristics. The composite physical domain is most able to discriminate difficulty in function in individuals after stroke, while the communication, memory, and emotion domain items only capture limitations in function in the more impaired groups of patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy for the Upper Limb After Stroke.

              Robot technology for poststroke rehabilitation is developing rapidly. A number of new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the effects of robot-assisted therapy for the paretic upper limb (RT-UL).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                06 July 2019
                06 July 2019
                : 394
                : 10192
                : 51-62
                Affiliations
                [a ]Stroke Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [b ]Stroke Northumbria, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Tyneside, UK
                [c ]Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [d ]Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
                [e ]School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
                [f ]Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [g ]School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [h ]Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford, UK
                [i ]London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, UK
                [j ]Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
                [k ]Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [l ]Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford and Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
                [m ]NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
                [n ]School of Health, Sport and Bioscience, University of East London, London, UK
                [o ]School of Medicine, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Helen Rodgers, Stroke Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AE, UK helen.rodgers@ 123456newcastle.ac.uk
                [†]

                Contributed equally

                Article
                S0140-6736(19)31055-4
                10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31055-4
                6620612
                31128926
                bfb1b08e-89e9-4aa0-939f-032ee003906b
                © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article