Cited by 48Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Study of a Wearable Remote Rehabilitation Training System for Patients With Stroke: Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: In contrast to the large and increasing number of patients with stroke, clinical rehabilitation resources cannot meet their rehabilitation needs. Especially for those discharged, ways to carry out effective rehabilitation training without the supervision of physicians and receive guidance from physicians remain urgent problems to be solved in clinical rehabilitation and have become a research hot spot at home and abroad. At present, there are many studies on home rehabilitation training based on wearable devices, Kinect, among others, but these have disadvantages (eg, complex systems, high price, and unsatisfactory rehabilitation effects). Objective: This study aims to design a remote intelligent rehabilitation training system based on wearable devices and human-computer interaction training tasks, and to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the remote rehabilitation training system for nonphysician-supervised motor rehabilitation training of patients with stroke through a clinical trial study. Methods: A total of 120 inpatients with stroke having limb motor dysfunction were enrolled via a randomized, parallel-controlled method in the rehabilitation institutions, and a 3-week clinical trial was conducted in the rehabilitation hall with 60 patients in the experimental group and 60 in the control group. The patients in the experimental group used the remote rehabilitation training system for rehabilitation training and routine clinical physical therapy (PT) training and received routine drug treatment every day. The patients in the control group received routine clinical occupational therapy (OT) training and routine clinical PT training and routine drug treatment every day. At the beginning of the training (baseline) and after 3 weeks, the Fugl-Meyer Motor Function Rating scale was scored by rehabilitation physicians, and the results were compared and analyzed. Results: Statistics were performed using SAS software (version 9.4). The total mean Fugl-Meyer score improved by 11.98 (SD 8.46; 95% CI 9.69-14.27) in the control group and 17.56 (SD 11.65; 95% CI 14.37-20.74) in the experimental group, and the difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant (P=.005). Among them, the mean Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score improved by 7.45 (SD 7.24; 95% CI 5.50-9.41) in the control group and 11.28 (SD 8.59; 95% CI 8.93-13.62) in the experimental group, and the difference between the 2 groups was statistically significant (P=.01). The mean Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score improved by 4.53 (SD 4.42; 95% CI 3.33-5.72) in the control group and 6.28 (SD 5.28; 95% CI 4.84-7.72) in the experimental group, and there was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P=.06). The test results showed that the experimental group was better than the control group, and that the patients’ motor ability was improved. Conclusions: The remote rehabilitation training system designed based on wearable devices and human-computer interaction training tasks can replace routine clinical OT training. In the future, through medical device registration certification, the system will be used without the participation of physicians or therapists, such as in rehabilitation training halls, and in remote environments, such as communities and homes. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200061310; https://tinyurl.com/34ka2725

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 · 10.2196/40416

Cites

5 of 5 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

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. 10.1007/s10072-020-04797-5 · DOI
  2. Wang, LD, 2022, Report on Stroke Prevention and Treatment in China 2021
  3. 10.1016/s1474-4422(04)00851-8 · DOI
  4. 10.2340/16501977-1115 · DOI
  5. 10.1109/icorr.2005.1501072 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.03.017 · DOI
  7. 10.1177/1084822316630278 · DOI
  8. 10.3389/fneur.2017.00284 · DOI
  9. 10.31031/tteh.2018.01.000503 · DOI
  10. 10.1310/tsr1803-277 · DOI
  11. 10.1093/ageing/30.4.303 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.artmed.2019.02.001 · DOI
  13. 10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2584003 · DOI
  14. 10.1109/JTEHM.2018.2822681 · DOI
  15. 10.1186/s12984-019-0569-x · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.025 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1007/s10586-013-0335-y · DOI
  18. 10.1177/1545968316680490 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/s40279-014-0142-5 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.06.020 · DOI
  21. 10.1089/tmj.2012.0300 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.05.013 · DOI
  23. 10.3389/fneur.2020.611453 · DOI
  24. Huang, J, 2019, Changes of lower extremity scores in different rehabilitation methods in control group and experimental group M, 283
  25. Sun, Z Q, 2014, Medical Statistics, 167
  26. 10.1111/ijs.12029 · DOI
  27. Li, JA, 2020, Rehabilitation Medicine, 80
  28. 10.1161/STR.0000000000000098 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1191/0269215504cr737oa · DOI
  30. 10.3390/brainsci9110295 · DOI
  31. 10.1155/2022/2106836 · DOI
  32. 10.1177/0269215515601177 · DOI
  33. 10.1152/jn.01295.2006 · DOI
  34. 10.1080/16501970410023434 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)03340-6 · DOI
  36. 10.2196/17216 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.2196/17804 · DOI
  38. 10.3390/s22031170 · DOI
  39. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1604 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.11.037 · DOI
  41. 10.1080/09638288.2021.1953623 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.apmr.2021.07.462 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Guo, L., Wang, J., Wu, Q., Li, X., Zhang, B., Zhou, L., & Xiong, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Tang Du Hospital (CN)
  • Jiangsu Province Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
Xiong, Daxi
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2023-02-23
Volume
11
Pages
e40416
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4321611486
Cited by
48
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
stroke rehabilitation, wearable devices, home-based rehabilitation, motor recovery, upper limb motor function, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, stroke inpatients, telemedicine, stroke rehabilitation centers, stroke rehabilitation services
MeSH terms
Telerehabilitation, Stroke Rehabilitation, Wearable Electronic Devices, Humans, Pilot Projects, Treatment Outcome, Stroke

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