Table 3.
Summary of studies investigating the direct effects of a robotic glove (with vs. robotic glove effects).
| Outcomes |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authors, Year Soft robotic glove model | Participants characteristics | Research design & Intervention | Measurement instruments | Without the soft robotic glove M (SD) or percentage | With the soft robotic glove, M (SD) or percentage | p-Value | Effect sizes or percentage difference |
| Brokaw et al.,25 2011HandSOME | n = 8M = 4F = 4Age range: not mentionedDx: subacute and chronic stroke | Clinical case series:Measures with and without the soft robotic glove (one visit) | 1) Active range of motion in extension (deg)2) Velocity in flexion (deg/sec)3) Velocity in extension (deg/sec)4) Box and Blocks (inch)5) Grip strength with JAMAR (N) | 1) not reported2) 26.9 (13.9)3) 11.30 (4.45)4) not reported5) 29.9 (1.9) | 1) + 48.7 (1.0)2) 93.10 (24.76)3) 59.40 (22.34)4) not reported5) 26.2 (1.8) | 1) p < 0.001*2) p = 0.004*3) p = 0.0534) p = 0.002*5) p = 0.17 | 1) NA2) d = 3.303) d = 2.994) NA5) d = -2.00 |
| Prange-Lasonder et al.,15 2017 HandinMind | n = 5M = 3F = 2Age range: 58–76 years Dx : chronic stroke | Case-Control series:Measure with and without the soft robotic glove (one visit) | 1) Pinch Gauge (kg)2) Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Testa) Picking up small objects (sec)b) Lift cane (sec) | 1) Increase by 11% to 27% with the glove2) a) Slower by 6% to 40% with glove in all participantsb) Faster by 2% to 24% with glove in 3/5 participants | Not reported | 1) Not significant2)a) p ≤ 0.043* b) Not significant | NA |
| Yap et al.,18 2017Not mentionned | n = 2M = 1F = 1Age: 40 and 50 yearsDx: chronic stroke | Clinical case reports:Measure with and without the soft robotic glove (one visit) | Grasp an empty bottle, lift it and put it down (sec)Grasp a tin can, lift it and put it down (sec) | Participant 1 = 9.0 (1.4)Participant 2 = > not finish within 90 sec; exact time not reported | Participant 1 = 8.0 (0.7)Participant 2 = 12.3 (2.7) | Participant 1:p = 0.06Participant 2:p = 0.02* | Participant 1: d = −0.90Participant 2 :NA |
| Cappello et al.,26 2018Not mentioned | n = 9M = 8F = 1Age range: 20–68 yearsDx: spinal cord injury C4-C7 | Clinical case series:TRI-HTF performed with and without the soft robotic glove (one visit) | Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Hand Function Test (TRI-HFT)1) Manipulation of objects2) Lift force (N) | 1) 3.77 (SD not reported)2) 1.76 (4.32) | 1) 6.11 (SD not reported)2) 2.76 (5.18) | 1) p < 0.0005*2) p < 0.0135* | 1) NA2) d = 0.21 |
| Radder et al.,34 2018HandinMind | n = 5M = 3F = 2Age range: 45–69 yearsDx: chronic stroke | Clinical case series:Five ADL tasks performed three times with and once without the soft robotic glove (Two visits) | 1) Functional task performance test (sec)a) Drinkingb) Eatingc) Household cleaningd) Readinge) Dressingf) Door opening | Overall, median changes showed a small difference between performance with and without glove ranging from –1.1 to 2.5 s, except for the drinking task in session 1 (median difference of 5.8), door opening task (median difference of 5.4) and the drinking task in session 2 (median difference of 4.1) in favor of performance without glove. | Not reported | Not reported | NA |
| Yurkewich et al., 201935HERO Glove | n = 5M = 2F = 3Age: 57-83Dx: acute and chronic stroke | Clinical case series:Measures with and without the soft robotic glove (one visit) | 1) Finger extension (deg)2) Range of motion (deg)3) Grip and pinch strength (kg)4) Box and Block Test (number of block)5) Chedoke Arm and Hand activity Inventory: water bottle task | 1) 46.25 (31.1)2) 32.5 (53.44)3) not reported4) 0.4 (0.8)5) 1.6 (1.2) | 1) 143.75 (22.18) 2) 78.75 (30.9)3) not reported4) 3.2 (1.17)5) 2.4 (1.02) | 1) p = 0.0002*2) Not significant3) Not significant4) p = 0.004*5) Not reported | 1) d = 3.612) d = 1.063) NA4) d = 2.795) d = 0.72 |
M: mean score; SD: standard deviation; Dx: diagnosis.
*Statistically significant at p < 0.05.