The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How PARO can help older people in elderly care facilities: A systematic review of RCT
Abstract
Purpose: This review aims to systematically evaluate the effects of Paro on older adults and provide a stronger basis for the rational application of Paro in aged care facilities. Methods: Articles published between January 2003 and January 2020 via five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Chinese database SinoMed) were searched. The Cochrane collaboration tool for randomized controlled trials was used to assess the quality of all included studies. Results: Nine articles were included in this systematic review. All articles were summarized according to three themes: quality of life, and biopsychological conditions, and drug usage. Conclusions: The review demonstrated that interaction with Paro can be beneficial for improving quality of life (QOL), biopsychological conditions, and reducing psychotropic and pain medical usage. Since the differences of the study design and low to moderate quality of these studies, however, we should be cautious to make positive comments on the role of Paro. Implications of nursing practice: The implications of Paro in aged care facilities have positive effects on nursing outcomes. This review helps caregivers understand the advantages and disadvantages of care robots, and promotes the integration of intelligent technology and manual services in nursing practice.
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
Figures
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“but also highlight substantial heterogeneity and predominantly low-to-moderate study quality [46,56].”
From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Pet Therapy in Improving the Care of Patients: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [56]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“systematic reviews point to potentially beneficial effects on quality of life and biopsychological outcomes”
From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Pet Therapy in Improving the Care of Patients: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [56]
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,451
Wang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,657
The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review.
Cohen, J. (1962) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0045186 · Cited by 1,824
Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review
Broekens, J., Heerink, M., & Rosendal, H. (2024) · Gerontechnology · doi:10.4017/gt.2009.08.02.002.00 · Cited by 940
Animal-Assisted Therapy: A Meta-Analysis
Nimer, J., & Lundahl, B. (2007) · Anthrozoös · doi:10.2752/089279307x224773 · Cited by 712
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Engedal K., Haugen P. K. (2004). Demens: Fakta og utfordringer: En lærebok. Nasjonalt kompetansesenter for aldersdemens.
- 10.1093/geront/gny046 · DOI · Paper page
- Sharkey A. Wood N. (2014). The Paro seal robot: Demeaning or enabling. Proceedings of AISB.
Cited by
Social robot interventions for child healthcare: A systematic review of the literature
Triantafyllidis, A., Alexiadis, A., Votis, K., & Tzovaras, D. (2023) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update · doi:10.1016/j.cmpbup.2023.100108 · Cited by 37
Synthetic Socio-Technical Systems: Poiêsis as Meaning Making
Bisconti, P., McIntyre, A., & Russo, F. (2024) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-024-00778-0 · Cited by 21
Liang, C., Zhou, P., & Xie, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2496429 · Cited by 10
Trajbarič, T., Muršec, D., Svenšek, A., Štiglic, G., & Gosak, L. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16104683
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, X., Shen, J., & Chen, Q.
- Affiliations
- Nursing Department, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Yuzhong district, #1 Youyi road, Chongqing, 400014, China
- ORCID
- Wang, Xinxia
- Venue
- International Journal of Nursing Knowledge
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-39
- ISSN
- 2047-3087
- 2047-3095
- PMC
- PMC9292779
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 50
- Language
- en
- Licence
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (vor)
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
- Funders
- Technology innovation and application development project of Science and Technology Commission Foundation of Chongqing Province (cstc2019jscx-msxmX0259)
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
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.
