↓ Skip to main content

Technology-assisted stroke rehabilitation in Mexico: a pilot randomized trial comparing traditional therapy to circuit training in a Robot/technology-assisted therapy gym

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
430 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Technology-assisted stroke rehabilitation in Mexico: a pilot randomized trial comparing traditional therapy to circuit training in a Robot/technology-assisted therapy gym
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12984-016-0190-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karla Bustamante Valles, Sandra Montes, Maria de Jesus Madrigal, Adan Burciaga, María Elena Martínez, Michelle J. Johnson

Abstract

Stroke rehabilitation in low- and middle-income countries, such as Mexico, is often hampered by lack of clinical resources and funding. To provide a cost-effective solution for comprehensive post-stroke rehabilitation that can alleviate the need for one-on-one physical or occupational therapy, in lower and upper extremities, we proposed and implemented a technology-assisted rehabilitation gymnasium in Chihuahua, Mexico. The Gymnasium for Robotic Rehabilitation (Robot Gym) consisted of low- and high-tech systems for upper and lower limb rehabilitation. Our hypothesis is that the Robot Gym can provide a cost- and labor-efficient alternative for post-stroke rehabilitation, while being more or as effective as traditional physical and occupational therapy approaches. A typical group of stroke patients was randomly allocated to an intervention (n = 10) or a control group (n = 10). The intervention group received rehabilitation using the devices in the Robot Gym, whereas the control group (n = 10) received time-matched standard care. All of the study subjects were subjected to 24 two-hour therapy sessions over a period of 6 to 8 weeks. Several clinical assessments tests for upper and lower extremities were used to evaluate motor function pre- and post-intervention. A cost analysis was done to compare the cost effectiveness for both therapies. No significant differences were observed when comparing the results of the pre-intervention Mini-mental, Brunnstrom Test, and Geriatric Depression Scale Test, showing that both groups were functionally similar prior to the intervention. Although, both training groups were functionally equivalent, they had a significant age difference. The results of all of the upper extremity tests showed an improvement in function in both groups with no statistically significant differences between the groups. The Fugl-Meyer and the 10 Meters Walk lower extremity tests showed greater improvement in the intervention group compared to the control group. On the Time Up and Go Test, no statistically significant differences were observed pre- and post-intervention when comparing the control and the intervention groups. For the 6 Minute Walk Test, both groups presented a statistically significant difference pre- and post-intervention, showing progress in their performance. The robot gym therapy was more cost-effective than the traditional one-to-one therapy used during this study in that it enabled therapist to train up to 1.5 to 6 times more patients for the approximately same cost in the long term. The results of this study showed that the patients that received therapy using the Robot Gym had enhanced functionality in the upper extremity tests similar to patients in the control group. In the lower extremity tests, the intervention patients showed more improvement than those subjected to traditional therapy. These results support that the Robot Gym can be as effective as traditional therapy for stroke patients, presenting a more cost- and labor-efficient option for countries with scarce clinical resources and funding. ISRCTN98578807 .

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 430 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 429 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 16%
Student > Bachelor 66 15%
Researcher 41 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 4%
Other 63 15%
Unknown 139 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 74 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 11%
Engineering 36 8%
Neuroscience 21 5%
Sports and Recreations 17 4%
Other 86 20%
Unknown 150 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2017.
All research outputs
#18,531,724
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#991
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,103
of 321,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#13
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.