The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x · Cited by 9,795
Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets
van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y.-S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., Lloyd, A., Scalone, L., Kind, P., & Pickard, A. S. (2012) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 · Cited by 2,153
Robot-Assisted Therapy for Long-Term Upper-Limb Impairment after Stroke
Lo, A. C., Guarino, P. D., Richards, L. G., Haselkorn, J. K., Wittenberg, G. F., Federman, D. G., Ringer, R. J., Wagner, T. H., Krebs, H. I., Volpe, B. T., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0911341 · Cited by 1,397
Self-citationInterventions for improving upper limb function after stroke
Pollock, A., Farmer, S. E., Brady, M. C., Langhorne, P., Mead, G. E., Mehrholz, J., & van Wijck, F. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010820.pub2 · Cited by 909
Willan, A. R., Briggs, A. H., & Hoch, J. S. (2004) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.843 · Cited by 364
Harris, J. E., Eng, J. J., Miller, W. C., & Dawson, A. S. (2009) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.544585 · Cited by 259
Cited by
Advances and challenges in stroke rehabilitation
Stinear, C. M., Lang, C. E., Zeiler, S., & Byblow, W. D. (2020) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(19)30415-6 · Cited by 792
Dawson, J., Liu, C. Y., Francisco, G. E., Cramer, S. C., Wolf, S. L., Dixit, A., Alexander, J., Ali, R., Brown, B. L., Feng, W., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00475-x · Cited by 518
Self-citationMotor learning in neurological rehabilitation
Levin, M. F., & Demers, M. (2021) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1752317 · Cited by 198
Classification of error-related potentials evoked during stroke rehabilitation training
Kumar, A., Pirogova, E., Mahmoud, S. S., & Fang, Q. (2021) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ac1d32 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Rodgers, H., Bosomworth, H., Krebs, H. I., van Wijck, F., Howel, D., Wilson, N., Aird, L., Alvarado, N., Andole, S., Cohen, D. L., Dawson, J., Fernandez-Garcia, C., Finch, T., Ford, G. A., Francis, R., Hogg, S., Hughes, N., Price, C. I., Ternent, L., Turner, D. L., Vale, L., Wilkes, S., & Shaw, L.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 394
- Issue
- 10192
- Pages
- 51-62
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2946772588
- Cited by
- 485
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 32.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31055-4
- The paper
- Rodgers, H., Bosomworth, H., Krebs, H. I., van Wijck, F., Howel, D., Wilson, N., Aird, L., Alvarado, N., Andole, S., Cohen, D. L., Dawson, J., Fernandez-Garcia, C., Finch, T., Ford, G. A., Francis, R., Hogg, S., Hughes, N., Price, C. I., Ternent, L., . . . Shaw, L. (2019). Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31055-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.