The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computerized Arm Training Improves the Motor Control of the Severely Affected Arm After Stroke: A Single-Blinded Randomized Trial in Two Centers
Abstract
Background and Purpose— To compare a computerized arm trainer (AT), allowing repetitive practice of passive and active bilateral forearm and wrist movement cycle, and electromyography-initiated electrical stimulation (ES) of the paretic wrist extensor in severely affected subacute stroke patients. Method— A total of 44 patients, 4 to 8 weeks after stroke causing severe arm paresis (Fugl–Meyer Motor Score [FM, 0 to 66] <18), were randomly assigned to either AT or ES. All patients practiced 20 minutes every workday for 6 weeks. AT patients performed 800 repetitions per session with the robot and ES patients performed 60 to 80 wrist extensions per session. The primary outcome measure was the blindly assessed FM (0 to 66), and the secondary measures were the upper limb muscle power (Medical Research Council [MRC] sum, 0 to 45) and muscle tone (Ashworth score sum, 0 to 25), assessed at the beginning and end of treatment and at 3-month follow-up. Results— The AT group had a higher Barthel Index score at baseline, but the groups were otherwise homogenous. As expected, FM and MRC sum scores improved overtime in both groups but significantly more in the robot AT group. The initial Barthel Index score had no influence. In the robot AT group, FM score was 15 points higher at study end and 13 points higher at 3-month follow-up than the control ES group. MRC sum score was 15 points higher at study end and at 3-month follow-up compared with the control ES group. Muscle tone remained unchanged, and no side effects occurred. Conclusion— The computerized active arm training produced a superior improvement in upper limb motor control and power compared with ES in severely affected stroke patients. This is probably attributable to the greater number of repetitions and the bilateral approach.
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
Lum, P. S., Burgar, C. G., Shor, P. C., Majmundar, M., & Van der Loos, M. (2002) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.33101 · Cited by 1,159
Cited by
Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review
Langhorne, P., Coupar, F., & Pollock, A. (2009) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(09)70150-4 · Cited by 2,319
What Is the Evidence for Physical Therapy Poststroke? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Veerbeek, J. M., van Wegen, E., van Peppen, R., van der Wees, P. J., Hendriks, E., Rietberg, M., & Kwakkel, G. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087987 · Cited by 1,203
Review of control strategies for robotic movement training after neurologic injury
Marchal-Crespo, L., & Reinkensmeyer, D. J. (2009) · Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/1743-0003-6-20 · Cited by 1,182
Hatem, S. M., Saussez, G., della Faille, M., Prist, V., Zhang, X., Dispa, D., & Bleyenheuft, Y. (2016) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00442 · Cited by 918
Mehrholz, J., Pohl, M., Platz, T., Kugler, J., & Elsner, B. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006876.pub4 · Cited by 678
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hesse, S., Werner, C., Pohl, M., Rueckriem, S., Mehrholz, J., & Lingnau, M. L.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1960-1966
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2000094867
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Computerized Arm Training Improves the Motor Control of the Severely Affected Arm After Stroke: A Single-Blinded Randomized Trial in Two Centers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.0000177865.37334.ce
- The paper
- Hesse, S., Werner, C., Pohl, M., Rueckriem, S., Mehrholz, J., & Lingnau, M. L. (2005). Computerized Arm Training Improves the Motor Control of the Severely Affected Arm After Stroke: A Single-Blinded Randomized Trial in Two Centers. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000177865.37334.ce
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.