Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 331

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

Hesse, S., Werner, C., Pohl, M., Rueckriem, S., Mehrholz, J., Lingnau, M.L.·2005·Stroke

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.0000177865.37334.ce

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 331

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.