Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 633

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy for the Upper Limb After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Veerbeek, Janne M., Langbroek-Amersfoort, Anneli C., van Wegen, Erwin E. H., Meskers, Carel G. M., Kwakkel, Gert·2017·Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair

Abstract

Background . Robot technology for poststroke rehabilitation is developing rapidly. A number of new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the effects of robot-assisted therapy for the paretic upper limb (RT-UL). Objective . To systematically review the effects of poststroke RT-UL on measures of motor control of the paretic arm, muscle strength and tone, upper limb capacity, and basic activities of daily living (ADL) in comparison with nonrobotic treatment. Methods . Relevant RCTs were identified in electronic searches. Meta-analyses were performed for measures of motor control (eg, Fugl-Meyer Assessment of the arm; FMA arm), muscle strength and tone, upper limb capacity, and basic ADL. Subgroup analyses were applied for the number of joints involved, robot type, timing poststroke, and treatment contrast. Results . Forty-four RCTs (N = 1362) were included. No serious adverse events were reported. Meta-analyses of 38 trials (N = 1206) showed significant but small improvements in motor control (~2 points FMA arm) and muscle strength of the paretic arm and a negative effect on muscle tone. No effects were found for upper limb capacity and basic ADL. Shoulder/elbow robotics showed small but significant effects on motor control and muscle strength, while elbow/wrist robotics had small but significant effects on motor control. Conclusions . RT-UL allows patients to increase the number of repetitions and hence intensity of practice poststroke, and appears to be a safe therapy. Effects on motor control are small and specific to the joints targeted by RT-UL, whereas no generalization is found to improvements in upper limb capacity. The impact of RT-UL started in the first weeks poststroke remains unclear. These limited findings could mainly be related to poor understanding of robot-induced motor learning as well as inadequate designing of RT-UL trials, by not applying an appropriate selection of stroke patients with a potential to recovery at baseline as well as the lack of fixed timing of baseline assessments and using an insufficient treatment contrast early poststroke.

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 · 10.1177/1545968316666957

Cites

10 of 10 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 10 references

Cited by

See all 633

Metadata

Authors
Veerbeek, J. M., Langbroek-Amersfoort, A. C., van Wegen, E. E. H., Meskers, C. G. M., & Kwakkel, G.
Venue
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
Published
2016-09-24
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
107-121
ISSN
  • 0888-4390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-9683
  • 1552-6844
OpenAlex
W2511163921
Cited by
633
References
10
FWCI
40.18
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: Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy for the Upper Limb After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1545968316666957
The paper
Veerbeek, J. M., Langbroek-Amersfoort, A. C., van Wegen, E. E. H., Meskers, C. G. M., & Kwakkel, G. (2017). Effects of Robot-Assisted Therapy for the Upper Limb After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968316666957

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.