Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2025-9
Efficacy of the Conventional Rehabilitation Robot and bio-Signal Feedback-Based Rehabilitation Robot on Upper-Limb Function in Patients with Stroke: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
With the development of modern biomedical engineering, bio-signal feedback-based robots, such as electromyography (EMG)-based and brain-computer interface (BCI)-based rehabilitation robot, have emerged beyond conventional designs. However, their comparative effectiveness for improving upper limb function in stroke patients remains unassessed.
Objective
To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and ranking of the conventional rehabilitation robot and bio-signal feedback-based rehabilitation robot in improving upper limb function in stroke patients.
Methods
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PEDro, EI, IEEEXplore, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, and ISRCTN Registry were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to December 25, 2024. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) and evidence certainty with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Network meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model within a frequentist framework.
Results
59 RCTs with 3,387 participants were included. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), the BCI-based rehabilitation robot demonstrated the highest overall effects (SUCRA: 99.9%), short-term effects (SUCRA: 99.4%), and long-term effects (SUCRA: 85.1%), though its long-term effects were not significant (mean difference: 2.21; 95% confidence interval: −0.79, 5.21). The EMG-based rehabilitation robot outperformed the conventional rehabilitation robot in short-term interventions (SUCRA: 59.8% vs. 40.3%), but it did not have the same advantage in long-term interventions (SUCRA: 27.1% vs. 66.8%).
Conclusions
The BCI-based rehabilitation robot might be the best choice for improving upper limb function in stroke patients. Future studies should focus on the intervention time for the EMG-based rehabilitation robot.
AmbrosiniE.GasperiniG.ZajcJ.ImmickN.AugstenA.RossiniM.BallaratiR.RussoldM.FerranteS.FerrignoG.BulgheroniM.BaccinelliW.SchauerT.WiesenerC.GfoehlerM.PuchingerM.WeberM.WeberS.PedrocchA.KrakowK. (2021). A robotic system with EMG-triggered functional eletrical stimulation for restoring arm functions in stroke survivors. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 35(4), 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968321997769
2.
AngK. K.GuanC.PhuaK. S.WangC.ZhouL.TangK. Y.JosephG.J.E.KuahC.W.K.ChuaK.S.G. (2014). Brain-computer interface-based robotic end effector system for wrist and hand rehabilitation : Results of a three-armed randomized controlled trial for chronic stroke. Frontiers in Neuroengineering, 7(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneng.2014.00030
3.
BaniquedP. D. E.StanyerE. C.AwaisM.AlazmaniA.JacksonA.E.Mon-WilliamsM.A.MushtaqF.HoltR.J. (2021). Brain-computer interface robotics for hand rehabilitation after stroke : A systematic review. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 18(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00820-8
4.
BurgarC. G.LumP. S.ScreminA. M. E.GarberS. L.Van der LoosH. F. M.KenneyD.ShorP. (2011). Robot-assisted upper-limb therapy in acute rehabilitation setting following stroke : Department of veterans affairs multisite clinical trial. The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 48(4), 445. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2010.04.0062
5.
ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (2019). Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd Ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
6.
ChenY. -W.ChiangW. -C.ChangC. -L.LoS. -M.WuC. -Y. (2022). Comparative effects of EMG-driven robot-assisted therapy versus task-oriented training on motor and daily function in patients with stroke : A randomized cross-over trial. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 19(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-021-00961-w
7.
ChenZ. J.HeC.XuJ.ZhengC. J.WuJ.XiaN., HuaQ.XiaW.G.XiongC. H.HuangX. L. (2023). Exoskeleton-Assisted anthropomorphic movement training for the upper limb after stroke : The EAMT randomized trial. Stroke, 54(6), 1464–1473. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.041480
8.
ChienW. T.ChongY. Y.TseM. K.ChienC.W.ChengH.Y. (2020). Robot-assisted therapy for upper-limb rehabilitation in subacute stroke patients : A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain and Behavior, 10(8), 01742. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1742
9.
EspositoD.CentracchioJ.AndreozziE.GargiuloG. D.NaikG. R.BifulcoP. (2021). Biosignal-Based human-machine interfaces for assistance and rehabilitation : A survey. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 21(20), 6863. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21206863
10.
FarinaD.Mrachacz-KerstingN. (2021). Brain-computer interfaces and plasticity of the human nervous system. The Journal of Physiology, 599(9), 2349–2350. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP279845
11.
FreemanS. C.FisherD.WhiteI. R.AuperinA.CarpenterJ. R. (2019). Identifying inconsistency in network meta-analysis : Is the net heat plot a reliable method?Statistics in Medicine, 38(29), 5547–5564. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8383
12.
GuggisbergA. G.NicoloP.CohenL. G.SchniderA.BuchE. R. (2017). Longitudinal structural and functional differences between proportional and poor motor recovery after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 31(12), 1029–1041. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968317740634
13.
GuoN.WangX.J.DuanmuD.H.HuangX.LiX.D.FanY.L., LiH.L.LiuY.Q.YeungE.H.K.ToM.K.T.GuJ.X.WanF., & HuY. (2022). SSVEP-based brain computer interface controlled soft robotic glove for post-stroke hand function rehabilitation. IEEE transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering : A Publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 30(1), 1737–1744. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2022.3185262
14.
HameedH. K.HassanW. Z. W.ShafieS.AhmadS. A.JaafarH. (2020). A review on surface electromyography-controlled hand robotic devices used for rehabilitation and assistance in activities of daily living. JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 32(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000277
15.
HeY.SongJ.WuJ. (2022). Research progress on the application of upper limb rehabilitation robot in motor dysfunction after stroke. Journal of Gerontology, 42(15), 3866–3870. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-9202.2022.15.064
16.
HuoY.WangX.ZhaoW.HuH.LiL. (2023). Effects of EMG-based robot for upper extremity rehabilitation on post-stroke patients : A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Physiology, 14(1), 1172958. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1172958
17.
HuttonB.SalantiG.CaldwellD. M.ChaimaniA.SchmidC. H.CameronC., IoannidisJ. P. A.StrausS.ThorlundK.JansenJ. P.MulrowC.Catalá-LópezF.GøtzscheP. C.DickersinK.BoutronI.AltmanD. G., & MoherD. (2015). The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions : Checklist and explanations. Annals of Internal Medicine, 162(11), 777–784. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385
18.
KwakkelG.KollenB. J. (2013). Predicting activities after stroke: What is clinically relevant?International Journal of Stroke: Official Journal of the International Stroke Society, 8(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00967.x
MaiseliB.AbdallaA. T.MassaweL. V.MbiseM.MkochaK.NassorN. A., IsmailM.MichaelJ., & KimamboS. (2023). Brain–computer interface: Trend, challenges, and threats. Brain Informatics, 10(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40708-023-00199-3
21.
MakowskiN. S.KnutsonJ. S.ChaeJ.CragoP. E. (2015). Control of robotic assistance using poststroke residual voluntary effort. IEEE transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering : A Publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 23(2), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2364273
22.
MCS.YKT. (2021). An evidence-splitting approach to evaluation of direct-indirect evidence inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 12(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1480
23.
McCabeJ.MonkiewiczM.HolcombJ.PundikS.DalyJ. J. (2015). Comparison of robotics, functional electrical stimulation, and motor learning methods for treatment of persistent upper extremity dysfunction after stroke : A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96(6), 981–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.022
24.
McConnellA. C.MoioliR. C.BrasilF. L.VallejoM.CorneD.W.VargasP.A.StokesA.A. (2017). Robotic devices and brain-machine interfaces for hand rehabilitation post-stroke. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 49(6), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2229
25.
MehrholzJ.PollockA.PohlM.KuglerJ.ElsnerB. (2020). Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of robotic-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living and upper limb function after stroke. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 17(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-020-00715-0
26.
Munoz-NovoaM.KristoffersenM. B.SunnerhagenK. S.NaberA.Alt MurphyM.Ortiz-CatalanM. (2022). Upper limb stroke rehabilitation using surface electromyography : A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16(1), 897870. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.897870
27.
NikolakopoulouA.HigginsJ. P. T.PapakonstantinouT.ChaimaniA.GiovaneC. D.EggerM.SalantiG. (2020). CINeMA : An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, 17(4), e1003082. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003082
28.
PatelJ.FluetG.QiuQ.YarossiM.MeriansA.TunikE.AdamovichS. (2019). Intensive virtual reality and robotic based upper limb training compared to usual care, and associated cortical reorganization, in the acute and early sub-acute periods post-stroke : A feasibility study. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 16(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0563-3
29.
PereiraJ.KoblerR.OfnerP.SchwarzA.Müller-PutzG. R. (2021). Online detection of movement during natural and self-initiated reach-and-grasp actions from EEG signals. Journal of Neural Engineering, 18(4), 046095. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ac0b52
30.
QuH.ZengF.TangY.ShiB.WangZ.ChenX.WangJ. (2022). The clinical effects of brain-computer interface with robot on upper-limb function for post-stroke rehabilitation : A meta-analysis and systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 19(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2060354
31.
RG.VD. (2018). Rehabilitation robots for the treatment of sensorimotor deficits : A neurophysiological perspective. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 15(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-018-0383-x
SainiV.GuadaL.YavagalD. R. (2021). Global Epidemiology of Stroke and Access to Acute Ischemic Stroke Interventions. Neurology, 97(20_Supplement_2), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000012781
34.
ShengB.ZhangY.MengW.DengC.XieS. (2016). Bilateral robots for upper-limb stroke rehabilitation : State of the art and future prospects. Medical Engineering & Physics, 38(7), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.04.004
35.
SterneJ. A. C.SavovićJ.PageM. J.ElbersR. G.BlencoweN. S.BoutronI.,CatesC.J.ChengH.Y.CorbettM.S.EldridgeS.M.EmbersonJ.R.HernánM.A.HopewellS.HróbjartssonA.JunqueiraD.R.JüniP.KirkhamJ.J.LassersonT.LiT.… HigginsJ. P. T. (2019). Rob 2 : A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 366(3), l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
36.
ViraniS. S.AlonsoA.BenjaminE. J.BittencourtM. S.CallawayC. W.CarsonA. P.ChamberlainA. M.ChangA. R.ChengS.DellingF. N.DjousseL.ElkindM. S. V.FergusonJ. F.FornageM.KhanS. S.KisselaB. M.KnutsonK. L.KwanT. W.LacklandD. T.TsaoC. W. (2020). Heart disease and stroke statistics-2020 update : A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 141(9), 139–596. https://doi.org/10.1161/cir.0000000000000757
37.
WinsteinC. J.SteinJ.ArenaR.BatesB.CherneyL. R.CramerS. C.DeruyterF.EngJ. J.FisherB.HarveyR. L.LangC. E.MacKay-LyonsM.OttenbacherK. J.PughS.ReevesM. J.RichardsL. G.StiersW.ZorowitzR. D. (2016). Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery : A guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American stroke association. Stroke, 47(6), 98–169. https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000098
38.
WuH.LiL.LiL.LiuT.WangJ. (2019a). Review of comprehensive intervention by hand rehabilitation robot after stroke. Journal of Biomedical Engi-Neering, 36(1), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.7507/1001-5515.201711024
39.
WuS.WuB.LiuM.ChenZ.WangZ.AndersonC.S.SandercockPWangY.HuangY.CuiY.PuC.JiaP.ZhangT.LiuX.ZhangS.XieP.FanD.JiX.WongK.L.WangL. (2019b). Stroke in China : Advances and challenges in epidemiology, prevention, and management. The Lancet Neurology, 18(4), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(18)30500-3
40.
XingY.BaiY. (2020). A review of exercise-induced neuroplasticity in ischemic stroke : Pathology and mechanisms. Molecular Neurobiology, 57(10), 4218–4231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-020-02021-1
41.
YuanR.QiaoX.TangC.ZhouT.ChenW.SongR., JiangY.ReinhardtJ.D., & WangH. (2023). Effects of uni- vs. Bilateral upper limb robot-assisted rehabilitation on motor function, activities of daily living, and electromyography in hemiplegic stroke : A single-blinded three-arm randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(8), 2950. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12082950
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
