Table 1.
Studies for question 1.
| First Author/year | Study Design | Evidence Level [16] | Duration | Setting | Country | Sample size | Age mean | Age range | Characteristics | Gender | Sampling | Technology | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | F | |||||||||||||
| Aisen [17] 1997 | Intervention study | III-1 | Overall duration not stated. Robot trained 4-5 hrs/wk on top of conventional training. Sham trained 1-2 sessions/wk | Hospital rehabilitation clinic | USA | 20 | § | Robot trained—45–68; Sham trained—38–72 | Post-stroke, hemiplegia | 11 | 9 | Pseudorandomised | “MIT-MANUS” | Robotic upper limb exoskeleton. |
| Morvan [18] 1997 | Qualitative study | IV | <1 mnth | § | France | 28 | § | § | Young with either tetraplegia, myopathies or spasticity | # | Not stated | “MASTER” robotic arm system | Psychological preparedness by older people for robots. | |
| Krebs [19] 1998 | Intervention study | III-1 | Overall duration not stated. Robot trained 4-5 hrs/wk on top of conventional training. Sham trained 1 sessions/wk | Hospital rehabilitation clinic | USA | 20 | Robot trained—58.5; Sham trained—63 | § | § | # | Pseudorandomised | “MIT-MANUS” | Robotic upper limb exoskeleton. | |
| Cozens [20]1999 | Intervention study | III-3 | <1 d | Laboratory | England | 10 | § | 47–69 | Stroke or MS with upper limb weakness | # | Pseudorandomised | No name provided | Robotic upper limb apparatus. | |
| Volpe [21] 1999 | Intervention study | III-1 | 1 wk treatment, 3 yr follow-up | Hospital rehabilitation clinic | USA | 20 total, 12 of 20 measureat 3 yrs | Robot trained—54 ± 3 Sham trained—66 ± 2 | § | Post-stroke | 7 | 5 | Pseudorandomised | “MIT-MANUS” | Robotic upper limb exoskeleton. |
| Reinkensmeyer [22] 1999 | Intervention study | III-3 | <1 d | § | USA | 5 | § | 24–79 | Brain injury (TBA/ABI) | # | Convenience | Robotic arm | Arm guidance system. | |
| Burgar[23] 2000 | Intervention study (x3) | III-2 | 1 wk–2 mnths | Laboratory | USA | 24 | § | 21–80 | Post-stroke hemiplegia | # | Convenience | MIME | Mirror Image Motion Enabler (MIME). | |
| Volpe [24] 2000 | Intervention study | III-1 | 25 × 1 hr sessions 5 d/wk |
Hospital rehabilitation clinic | USA | 56 | 64.5 | 27–83 | Post-stroke hemiplegia | 30 | 26 | Randomised control | “MIT-MANUS” | Robotic upper limb exoskeleton. |
| Jezernik [25] 2003 | Intervention study | III-3 | 2 × 1 hr sessions | Spinal cord injury clinic | Switzerland | 6 | § | 38–73 | Spinal cord | # | § | “Lokomat” | Robotic gait exoskeleton. | |
| Loureiro [26] 2003 | Intervention study | III-3 | 9 sessions over 3 wks | Hospital | England | 30 | § | § | Stroke hemiplegia | # | Randomised control | “GENTLE/S” | Haptic upper limb system. | |
| Rentschler [13] 2003 | Technical report | IV | <1 d | Laboratory | USA | 1 | 29 | 29 | Healthy | 1 | — | Case study | PAMA | Personal adaptive mobility aid (PAMA). |
| Winchester [27] 2005 | Other | III-3 | 12 wks | Laboratory | USA | 4 | § | 20–49 | Spinal cord injury | 4 | — | Convenience | “Lokomat” | Robotic gait exoskeleton. |
| Spenko [28] 2006 | Other | III-3 | <1 d | Laboratory | USA | 6 | § | 85–95 | Healthy older | 1 | 5 | Convenience | “Smartcane” and “Smart walker” | Walking aid for mobility and monitoring. |
| Isreal[29] 2006 | Other | III-3 | 5 sessions | Laboratory | USA | 12 | § | 15–59 | Spinal cord injury | # | Convenience | “Lokomat” | Robotic gait exoskeleton. | |
| Mehrholz[30] 2007 | Systematic review | I | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Assisted gait device | Robotic-assisted gait training. | |
| Rocon [31] 2007 | Other | III-3 | <1 d | Laboratory | Spain | 10 | 52.3 | § | Tremor | 7 | 3 | Convenience | “WOTAS” | Robotic exoskeleton to reduce arm tremor. |
| Saeki [32] 2008 | Other | IV | 6 mnths | Laboratory | Japan | 1 | 48 | n/a | Neuro-logical | — | 1 | N/a | “Bi-Manu-Track” | Robotic arm trainer. |
| Hidler [33] 2008 | Intervention study | III-2 | 6 mnths | Laboratory | USA | 5 | 44.1 | 24–59 | Spinal cord injury | # | Randomised control | “Lokomat” | Robotic gait exoskeleton. | |
| Janssen and Pringle [34] 2008 | Intervention study | III-3 | 6 wks | Laboratory | USA | 12 | 36 | 20–70 | Spinal cord injury | 12 | — | Convenience | “ERGYS 1” | Functional electrical stimulator leg ergometry. |
| Krebs [35] 2008 | Intervention study | III-2 | 6 wks | Rehabilitation clinic | USA | 47 | 57.5 | 27–79 | Stroke | # | Pre-post single group | “MIT-MANUS” | Robotic hand visuomotorguidancesystem. | |
| Patton [36] 2008 | Other | n/a | n/a | n/a | USA | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | “KineAssist” | Discussion paper on robot to improve balance and gait. | |
| Querry [37] 2008 | Intervention study | III-2 | <1 d | Laboratory | USA | 26 | 35.5 | § | Spinal cord injury | 17 | 9 | Non-randomised control | “Lokomat” | Robotic gait exoskeleton. |
| Rentschler [38] 2008 | Intervention study | III-2 | 1 d | Laboratory | USA | 17 | 85.3 | § | Healthy | # | Pseudorandomised | “GUIDO” | Robotic walker. | |
| Galluppi [39] 2009 | Intervention study | IV | § | Hospital | Italy | § | § | § | § | # | § | Robotic wheelchair | Collaborative control robotic wheelchair. | |
| Shimada [40] 2009 | Intervention study | III-2 | <6 mths | Retirement village | Japan | 15 | 78.3 | 72–85 | Healthy | 0 | 15 | Convenience | Stride assistance system | Robotic exoskeleton stride assistance system to assist with walking but provide resistance for physical improvement. |
| Flinn [41] 2009 | Case study | IV | 6 wks | Hospital | USA | 1 | 48 | n/a | Post-stroke | n/a | n/a | “InMotion2” | Upper limb visuomotor guidance system. | |
| Zeng [42] 2009 | Intervention study | IV | § | Hospital rehabilitation clinic | Singapore | 3 | § | 16–48 | Cerebral palsy/TBI | # | Convenience | Robotic wheelchair | Collaborative control robotic wheelchair. | |
| Lo [43] 2010 | Intervention study | II | 12 weeks (total of 36 hours training) | Multi-rehabilitation centres | USA | 127 | 64.6 | § | >6 months post-stroke | 122 | 5 | Random control trial | Modular robotic system (no name) for upper arm guidance. | Modular robotic upper arm guidance system for shoulder, forearm, wrist, and grasping movements. |
| Frizera Neto[44] 2010 | Intervention study | III-3 | <1 d | Indoor installation | Spain | 5 | § | § | Healthy | # | Convenience | “SIMBIOSIS” | Robotic walker—upper body force interaction. | |
| Sharma [45] 2010 | Intervention study | III-3 | <1 d | Laboratory | USA | 19 | 38.5 | § | Healthy | 13 | 6 | Convenience | “Drive Safe” smart wheelchairs | Joystick driven, sensor controlled wheelchairs. |
| Wolpaw [46] 2010 | Expert opinion | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Brain-computer interfaces | Opinion based article on the progression in brain-computer interfaces and suggestions on where the technology paradigm should progress. | |
| Galvez [47] 2011 | Intervention study | III-3 | n/a | Laboratory | USA | 4 | § | 24–62 | Spinal cord injury | # | Convenience | Sensor orthoses | Robotic body-weight support treadmill. | |
| Turiel [48] 2011 | Intervention study | III-3 | 1 hr/d, 5 d/wk, 30–45 mins/session | Laboratory | Italy | 14 | 50.6 | n/a | Spinal cord injury | 10 | 4 | Pre-post single group | “Lokomat” | Robotic gait exoskeleton. |
| Schwartz [49] 2011 | Intervention study | III-3 | 2-3 times/wk, 30–45 mins/session |
Rehabilitaion clinic | Israel | 28 | 42 | n/a | Spinal cord injury | 18 | 10 | Single group, matched historical control | “Lokomat” | Robotic gait exoskeleton. |
| Conroy[50] 2011 | Intervention study | II | 60 mins, 3 times/wk for 6 wks | Laboratory | USA | 62 | 57.8 | n/a | Stroke, hemiplegia upper limb | 34 | 28 | Random control trial | “InMotion2” | Upper limb visuomotor guidance system. 2D versus 3D including antigravity training, comparing the combination of vertical and planar robot with planar alone. |
| Carlson and Demiris[51] 2012 | Intervention study | III-2 | <1 d, 2 × 40 min sessions | Simulated home | England | 21 | § | 17–47 | Healthy | # | Convenience | No name | Collaborative controlled robotic wheelchair. | |
#No gender given, §Not given.