Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Economic Analysis of Robot-Assisted Therapy for Long-Term Upper-Limb Impairment After Stroke

Open access
Wagner, Todd H., Lo, Albert C., Peduzzi, Peter, Bravata, Dawn M., Huang, Grant D., Krebs, Hermano I., Ringer, Robert J., Federman, Daniel G., Richards, Lorie G., Haselkorn, Jodie K., Wittenberg, George F., Volpe, Bruce T., Bever, Christopher T., Duncan, Pamela W., Siroka, Andrew, Guarino, Peter D.·2011·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose—: Stroke is a leading cause of disability. Rehabilitation robotics have been developed to aid in recovery after a stroke. This study determined the additional cost of robot-assisted therapy and tested its cost-effectiveness. Methods—: We estimated the intervention costs and tracked participants' healthcare costs. We collected quality of life using the Stroke Impact Scale and the Health Utilities Index. We analyzed the cost data at 36 weeks postrandomization using multivariate regression models controlling for site, presence of a prior stroke, and Veterans Affairs costs in the year before randomization. Results—: A total of 127 participants were randomized to usual care plus robot therapy (n=49), usual care plus intensive comparison therapy (n=50), or usual care alone (n=28). The average cost of delivering robot therapy and intensive comparison therapy was $5152 and $7382, respectively ( P <0.001), and both were significantly more expensive than usual care alone (no additional intervention costs). At 36 weeks postrandomization, the total costs were comparable for the 3 groups ($17 831 for robot therapy, $19 746 for intensive comparison therapy, and $19 098 for usual care). Changes in quality of life were modest and not statistically different. Conclusions—: The added cost of delivering robot or intensive comparison therapy was recuperated by lower healthcare use costs compared with those in the usual care group. However, uncertainty remains about the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted rehabilitation compared with traditional rehabilitation. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00372411.

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/strokeaha.110.606442

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Wagner, T. H., Lo, A. C., Peduzzi, P., Bravata, D. M., Huang, G. D., Krebs, H. I., Ringer, R. J., Federman, D. G., Richards, L. G., Haselkorn, J. K., Wittenberg, G. F., Volpe, B. T., Bever, C. T., Duncan, P. W., Siroka, A., & Guarino, P. D.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2011-09
Volume
42
Issue
9
Pages
2630-2632
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2128614279
Cited by
177
References
3
FWCI
9.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: An Economic Analysis of Robot-Assisted Therapy for Long-Term Upper-Limb Impairment After Stroke. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/strokeaha.110.606442
The paper
Wagner, T. H., Lo, A. C., Peduzzi, P., Bravata, D. M., Huang, G. D., Krebs, H. I., Ringer, R. J., Federman, D. G., Richards, L. G., Haselkorn, J. K., Wittenberg, G. F., Volpe, B. T., Bever, C. T., Duncan, P. W., Siroka, A., & Guarino, P. D. (2011). An Economic Analysis of Robot-Assisted Therapy for Long-Term Upper-Limb Impairment After Stroke. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.110.606442

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.