Background
Methods
Search strategy
-
Search 1: error amplifica*, error augment*, error enhance*, error enhancing, negative viscosity, haptic guidance, haptic*, active assist* (all keywords were combined with OR operator).
-
Search 2: stroke/ or stroke rehabilitation (MeSH), post-stroke (all keywords were combined with OR operator).
-
Search 3: upper extremity/or arm (MeSH), upper-extremity, upper arm, motor learn*, reaching (all keywords were combined with OR operator).
-
Final search: all three previous searches were combined with AND operator.
Study selection process
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Methodological quality assessment
Risk of bias assessment
Data extraction
-
Study design, and in case of a clinical trial, indicating if the trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (run by the United States National Library of Medicine)
-
Number of participants in the experimental and control groups
-
Demographic and clinical information of the participants
-
Equipment used
-
Experimental protocol including the parameters of training
-
Main outcomes measures and assessment tools used
-
Results of the study including the significant levels and interpretations
-
Effect sizes of the results
-
Methodological quality scores of the study calculated using the PEDro scale.
Data analysis and synthesis
Results
Study selection
Study designs
Article | Study design | Number of participants: experimental group (E) and control group (C) | Participants characteristics | Equipment | Experimental Protocol | Outcomes and assessment tools | Main results and interpretation (means ± standard deviation) | Effect size (Cohen’s d) | Quality of study (PEDro score) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abdollahi et al. [52] | Crossover randomized controlled trial. Trial registered NCT01574495 | 27 in total, E = 13, C = 14 (before crossover) | Ages: 36–88 years (mean = 57.92 ± 9.96), 12 males and 15 females, all participants suffered a single cortical or subcortical stroke at least 6 months prior to the study (mean = 82.34 ± 72.04 months, 9 hemorrhagic, 18 ischemic) FMb scores: 15–50 (mean/SD unknown) | Virtual Reality Robotic and Optical Operations Machine (VRROOM). Phantom Premium 3.0 robot. | Experimental task: various reaching movement Control group: received only treatment of repetitive practice EA group: same as the control group in addition of combined visual and haptic error augmentation Training parameters: 60 min per session, three sessions per week, two weeks of training per phase (two). After first phase, all subjects switched to the other group. | Clinical ROMc, AMFMa, WMFT FASd, WMFT time measure, Box and Blocks test | ROM: no significant effects AMFM: in the first phase, EA showed more improvement than control (2.08 ± 2.25 vs 0.69 ± 2.90), and this difference was significant [F(1,24) = 4.261, p < 0.05] In the second phase, EA was still better than control (1.15 ± 2.21 vs 0.54 ± 2.30), but not significantly (numerical values not provided) WMFT FAS: in the first phase, EA was better than control (0.11 ± 0.24 vs 0.01 ± 0.16), but level of significance unknown. In the second phase, control was better than EA (0.14 ± 0.22 vs − 0.02 ± 0.25), but level of significance unknown. WMFT time: in the first phase, EA was better than control (1.48 ± 8.86 vs − 0.53 ± 5.19), but level of significance unknown. In the second phase, EA was better than control (1.19. ± 5.68 vs 0.17 ± 8.02), but level of significance unknown. Box and Blocks test: no significant effects | AMFM: first phase 0.53 (medium effect). second phase 0.27 (small effect). WMFT FAS: first phase 0.51 (medium effect). second phase 0.52 (medium effect) WMFT time: First phase 0.28 (small effect) Second phase 0.14 (very small effect) | 7/10, high quality |
Givon-Mayo et al. [63] | Pilot study. Trial registered NCT02017093 | 7 in total, E = 4 and C = 3 | Ages: 45–78 (mean = 59.14 ± 9.77), 8 males and 1 female. All participants sustained a stroke (1 hemorrhagic, 8 ischemic) 2 to 3 weeks prior to the study. FM scores: EA group mean = 53.25 ± 3.77 Control group mean = 54.33 ± 3.84 | DeXtreme prototype robot- 2 degrees of freedom. Free end Robot. | Experimental tasks: reaching EA group: received error inducing forces from the robot Control group: also attached to the robot, but did not receive forces Training parameters: 20 min per session, three sessions per week for five weeks | Kinematic: movement velocity deviation error (cm/sec). Clinical: FM, MASe | MAS: the EA group showed more improvement than the control group (3.2 ± 2.6 vs 1.7 ± 3.2), but the level of significant unknown FM: no significant changes Velocity deviation error: the EA group showed significant (p < 0.05) more improvement than the control group (− 16.8 ± 3.8 vs − 4.7 ± 3.8) | MAS: 0.51 (medium effect) Velocity deviation error: 3.2 (very large effect) | 3/10, poor quality |
Huang and Patton [59] | Crossover design. Trial not registered | 30 in total, Participants were randomly assigned to either one control group or two experimental groups, but the numbers are unknown. | Mean age = 52.0 ± 8.2, all participants suffered from a chronic stroke (mean = 102.0 ± 84.0 months). Clinical assessment results prior to the study were not available | A planar force feedback device. The subject’s arm was supported by a low-friction, low-impedance mechanism | Experimental tasks: circular movement task Control group practiced on the training device in null-field conditions in all sessions. The two experimental groups: trained in a null field condition in the first session, then received either EA force alone or EA force combined with positive limb inertia in the next session. They switched to the other condition in third session Training parameters: Two hours per session, three sessions in total | Kinematic: radial deviation (distance between the handle and template circular track) (mm) | When evaluated in the next session, the control showed no significant improvement (0.7 mm ± 2.3, 95% confidence interval: − 0.4 to 1.8). The EA group showed the largest significant improvement (1.4 ± 2.7, CI: 0.2 to 3.0) while the combined EA with inertia group showed non-significant improvement (1.1 ± 2.7, CI: 0 to 2.2) | EA compared to control: 0.28 (small effect). EA compared to combined EA with inertia: 0.11 (very small effect) | 3/10, poor quality |
Majeed et al. [62] | Randomized comparative experiment. Trial not registered. | 28 in total, participants were randomized into experimental and control groups based on blocks of FM scores | Ages: 26–78 (mean = 55.38, SD unknown), 17 males and 11 females, all participants suffered from a cortical chronic stroke (mean/SD unknown), Upper extremity FM score: 25–49 (block randomized into both groups, mean/SD unknown) | Three-dimentional haptic/ graphic system called the Virtual Reality Robotic and Optical Operations Machine (VRROOM) | Experimental tasks: reaching Control group: received only treatment of repetitive practice EA group: same as the control group in addition of combined visual and haptic error augmentation Training parameters: 45 min per session, three sessions per week, two weeks of training | Clinical: AMFM | At the end of 2 weeks of training, no significant difference was found between EA and control groups in improvement of AMFM (numerical data not provided). At one-week follow-up, EA group showed more retention than control group (2.60 ± 3.50 vs − 0.1 ± 6.98), but the level of significant known | From the end of training to one-week follow-up: 0.52 (medium effect) | 6/10, high quality |
Patton et al. [53] | Randomized controlled trial. Trial not registered | 15 in total. E = 12, C = 9 (6 subjects returned for a second visit, so they served as their own control) | Ages: 30–76 (E: mean = 50.66 ± 13.08; C: mean = 50.77 ± 12.16), 9 males and 6 females, all participants suffered from a chronic stroke (E: mean = 77.25 ± 40.85 months; C: mean = 99.89 ± 44.13) prior to the experiment. FM score (E: mean = 34.36 ± 12.23; C: mean = 35.0 ± 11.79 | A two degrees-of-freedom robot | Experimental tasks: reaching EA group: received EA forces from the robotic while doing repetitive practice. Control group: Same training but without EA forces. Training parameters: One single session of three hours and consisted of 744 movements | Kinematic: size of movement error (change in %) Clinical: AMFM | AMFM: the EA group had a greater improvement than control group (1.6 ± 2.6, p = 0.06 vs 0.4 ± 1.1, p > 0.27), but the results were not significant Movement error size: the EA group had a greater improvement than control group (− 45.2 ± 80.6 vs − 11.1 ± 48), but the levels of significance unknown | AMFM: 0.65 (medium effect) Movement error size: 0.53 (medium effect) | 5/10, fair quality |
Rozario et al. [60] | Crossover design. Trial not registered | 10 in total Stroke group (before cross-over) EA = 3 Control = 2 Healthy group 5 | Stroke: ages: 36–69 (mean = 55.0 ± 12.1), 4 males and 1 female, suffered a single cortical stroke for more than 6 months (mean/SD unknown), AMFM: EA group mean = 35.33 ± 8.14 Control group mean = 43.50 ± 2.12 Healthy: ages: 19–27 (mean/SD unknown) | A 6-degree of freedom PHANTOM Premium 3.0 robot | Experimental tasks: various reaching movement. Control group: received only treatment of repetitive practice EA group: same as the control group in addition of combined visual and haptic error augmentation Healthy group: did not receive any treatment, only data collected Training parameters: 40 min per session, three sessions per week, and two weeks per phase (two). After first phase, all subjects switched groups. | Kinematic: ROM errors (m) Clinical: AMFM, WMFT FAS, WMFT time, Box and Blocks test | Clinical test: no noticeable changes in any of the clinical tests (numerical data not provided). ROM errors: In the first phase, EA showed more improvement than control group (0.08 ± 0.08 vs 0.04 ± 0.04), level of significant unknown. In the second phase, EA showed no improvement but control group showed deterioration (0 ± 0 vs − 0.02 ± 0.03). More errors seen in stroke subjects than healthy subjects. | ROM errors: first phase 0.75 (medium effect). Second phase 1.05 (large effect) | 4/10, fair quality |
Article | Study design | Number of participants: experimental group (E) and control group (C) | Participants characteristics | Equipment | Experimental Protocol | Outcomes and assessment tools | Main results and interpretation (means ± standard deviation) | Effect size (Cohen’s d) | Quality of study (PEDro score) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kahn et al. [55] | Randomized controlled trial. Trial not registered | 19 participants with stroke in total E = 10 C = 9 | E: age (mean) = 55.6 ± 12.2, four males and six females, months post-stroke (mean) = 75.8 ± 45.5, CMc (mean) = 3.5 ± 0.9 C: age (mean) = 55.9 ± 12.3, seven males and two females, months after stroke (mean) = 103.1 ± 48.2, CM (mean) = 3.2 ± 1.0 | ARM Guide (the Assisted Rehabilita-tion and Measure-ment Guide), a robotic device that drives user’s hand along a linear rail | Experimental task: reaching ERa group: the subjects received robotic active assistance Control group: they were not attached to the device Training parameters: A single session consisted of 50 trials | Kinematic: Supported fraction of range (FRs), supported fraction of speed (FSs), unsupported fraction of speed (FRu). Clinical: CM | FRs: ER group showed more improvement than control group (0.14 ± 0.11 vs 0.12 ± 0.09), but not significantly (p = 0.844) FSs: ER group showed more improvement than control group (0.22 ± 0.09 vs 0.21 ± 0.13), but not significantly (p = 0.898) FRu: control group showed more improvement than ER group (0.02 ± 0.07 vs 0.01 ± 0.09), but not significantly (p = 0.687) CM: control group showed more improvement than ER group (0.3 ± 0.5 vs 0.2 ± 0.4), but not significantly (p = 0.414) | FRs: 0.2 (small effect) FSs: 0.09 (very small effect) FRu: 0.13 (very small effect) CM: 0.22 (small effect) | 4/10, fair quality |
Takahashi et al. [56] | Randomized controlled trial Trial registered NCT01244243 | 13 participants with stroke in total Group A-A: 7 Group ANA-A: 6 | A-A group: age (mean) = 58.6 ± 16, months since stroke (mean) = 14.4 ± 13.2 AMFMb = 40.4 ± 10.5 ANA-A group: age (mean) = 67.3 ± 15, months since stroke (mean) = 57.8 ± 87.6, AMFM = 49.5 ± 8.6 | HWARD (The Hand Wrist Assistive Rehabilita-tion Device) is 3 degrees of freedom that assists the hand in grasp and in release movement | Experimental task: Grasp and release exercises A-A (Active Assist) group: the subjects received robotic assistance throughout the training sessions. ANA-A (Active Non-Assist to Active Assist) group: the subjects were attached to the robotic device but did not receive assistance for the first half of the treatment phase, then received robotic assistance in the second half of the phase. Training parameters: 15 sessions over three weeks. Each session lasted around one hour and half. | Clinical: ARATd, AMFM, Box and Blocks test Other: EMGf, fMRIg | ARAT: by the end of session, the A-A group showed more improvement than ANA-A group (5.3 ± 2.1 vs 2.8 ± 1.8), the difference was significant [F(2,10) = 5.2, p < 0.03]. AMFM:: by the end of session, the A-A group showed more improvement than ANA-A group (9.1 ± 2.1 vs 5.8 ± 1.6), the difference was significant [F(2,10) = 4.8, p < 0.04] Box and Blocks: no significant difference found between the two groups EMG: no significant change within subjects in the recruitment pattern of muscle fMRI: the percent signal change in the left primary sensorimotor cortex remained stable (p > 0.3) | ARAT: 1.28 (very large effect) AMFM:1.78 (very large effect) | 5/10, fair quality |
Timmer-mans et al. [57] | Randomized controlled trial. Trial registered on ISRCTN registry ISRCTN82787126 | 22 participants with stroke in total E = 11 C = 11 | E: age (mean) = 61.8 ± 6.8, eight males and three females, months post-stroke (mean) = 44.4 ± 36, AMFM (median) = 53 C: age (mean) = 56.8 ± 6.4, eight males and three females, years after stroke (mean) = 33.6 ± 34.8, AMFM (median) = 50 | The robotic system Haptic Master, with six degrees of freedom | Experimental task: functional tasks (‘drinking from a cup,’ ‘eating with a knife and fork,’ ‘taking money from a purse’ or ‘using a tray.’ ER group: subjects received trajectory guidance from the robot. Control group: the subjects were not supported by the robot. Training parameters: Two sessions of 30 min (break of 0.5 to 1 h) per day, four days per week for eight weeks. | Clinical AMFM, ARAT, MAL AU and QUe | AMFM: by the end of 8 weeks training, the control group showed more improvement than ER group (3.5 ± 5.9 vs 1.6 ± 17.9), but the result was not significant (p = 0.51). ARAT: the control group showed more improvement than ER group (16.1 ± 26.5 vs 9.0 ± 11.0), but the result was not significant (p = 0.79). MAL AU: the control group showed more improvement than ER group (33.1 ± 64.0 vs 9.0 ± 37.5), but the result was not significant (p = 0.33). MAL QU: the control group showed more improvement than ER group (46.5 ± 40.9 vs 41.3 ± 33.1), but the result was not significant (p = 0.4). | AMFM: 0.16 (very small effect) ARAT: 0.38 (small effect) MAL AU: 0.47 (small effect) MAL QU: 0.14 (very small effect) | 8/10, high quality |
Article | Study design | Number of participants: experimental group (E) and control group (C) | Participants characteristics | Equipment | Experimental Protocol | Outcomes and assessment tools | Main results and interpretation (means ± standard deviation) | Effect size (Cohen’s d) | Quality of study (PEDro score) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bouchard et al. [61] | Randomized comparative experiment. Trial not registered. | 34 in total EA group: 17 haptic guidance (ER) group: 17 | ER group: age (mean) = 67 ± 7, months since stroke (mean) = 63 ± 54 AMFMa = 63 ± 8 EA group: age (mean) = 67 ± 6, months since stroke (mean) = 78 ± 64 AMFM = 60 ± 10 | TEO, a robotic device with 10-degree flexion/ extension of the left/ right wrist, actuated by Dynamixel MX-106 servomotor | Experimental task: flex paretic wrist at the right time. ER group: the robotic device adjusted its activation time to reduce the timing errors (k value decreased by 90%). EA group: the opposite, the timing errors were increased (k value increased by 90%) Training parameters: Four phases of baseline assess-ment (140 trials) before the intervention. 75 trials during the inter-vention, and 40 trials at the reten-tion phase. | Kinematic: Absolute timing errors (ms) | A significant decrease of 1.1 ± 5.1 ms in absolute timing errors in the ER group (p = 0.032), and a non-significant increase of 0.4 ± 6.0 in the EA group (p = 0.45). A between group comparison revealed no significant difference between the two groups (95% confidence interval: − 1.2 to 4.3) | 0.27 (small effect size) | 8/10, high quality |
Cesqui et al. [58] | Crossover design. Trial not registered | 15 in total EA group: 6 ER group: 9 (before cross-over) | Ages: 20–71 years (mean = 42 ± 17) 8 males and 7 females, all participants suffered from stroke (stages unknown) CMb: First EA group: mean = 5 ± 0.89 First ER group: mean = 4 ± 0.86 | InMotion2 | Experimental tasks: reaching targets in a plane. EA group: received divergent field (negative elastic force) ER group: received active assistance Training parameters: One hour per session, ten sessions per therapy cycle which lasted two weeks before subjects switched groups. | Kinematic: Metric indexes (movement smoothness, movement accuracy, path length ratio, movement direction variability) Clinical: MSSc, MASd, ROM Shoulder and Elbow | MAS: in the first cycle, ER showed more improvement than EA (3.5 ± 2.8 vs 1.8 ± 3.6), but level of significance not provided. In the second cycle, ER still showed more improvement than EA (0.9 ± 3.5 vs 0.3 ± 2.7), but level of significance not provided. MSS: in the first cycle, ER showed more improvement than EA (2.9 ± 7.1 vs 1.8 ± 5.2), but level of significance not provided. In the second cycle, ER still showed more improvement than EA (1.0 ± 4.8 vs 0.6 ± 6.4), but level of significance not provided. ROMs: no significant changes (numerical values not provided) Metric indexes: no numerical values reported, so unable to calculate differences between groups. The authors reported final metric indexes differences were not significant in the group started with EA (F = 1.61, p = 0.194) but in the group started with ER, there was a significant improvement indexes (F = 9,46, p = 0.006). They did not mention the comparison of metric indexes between groups. | MAS: first cycle 0.53 (medium effect). second cycle 0.19 (very small effect). MSS: first cycle 0.18 (very small effect). second cycle 0.09 (very small effect). | 3/10, poor quality |
Patton et al. [24] | Quasi-experimental design. Trial not registered | 31 in total, Stroke Group EA = 9 ER = 9 C = 9 Healthy Group EA = 2 ER = 2 | Ages = 30–72 years (EA: mean = 54.3 ± 8.8;ER: mean = 48.0 ± 8.4;Control: mean = 51.2 ± 6.1), besides 4 healthy subjects, all participants suffered from a chronic stroke (16–173 months, EA: mean = 69.1 ± 50.2; ER: mean = 109.3 ± 45.8; Control: mean = 70.8 ± 60.4), FM: EA group mean = 40.2 ± 13.7 ER group mean = 25.5 ± 10.9 Control group mean = 37.3 ± 16.2 | Free-extremity robot with two degrees of freedom. The participant’s arm was supported by a low-friction, low-impedance mechanism | Experimental tasks: reaching EA group: both stroke and healthy EA groups received force field that magnified errors (EA) ER group: both stroke and healthy ER groups received force field that reduced error. In the stroke control group, the 9 participants with stroke did not receive interfering forces. Training parameters: One single session of 834 movements. | Kinematic: initial direction error (degrees). Adaptation capacity | The stroke EA group showed improvement at initial direction error (8.9 ± 10.9) while the stroke ER group showed deterioration (− 6.8 ± 9.6). The different between EA and ER groups was significant [F(1,13) = 4.29, p < 0.001]. Stroke subjects showed less adaptation capacity than healthy subjects (26% less) | Initial direction error: 1.53 (very large effect) | 1/10, poor quality |
Tropea et al. [54] | Crossover randomized controlled trial. Trial not registered | 18 in total EA = 9 ER = 9 (before cross-over) | Ages: 21–71 (EA: mean = 49.7± 18.7; ER: mean = 44.9 ± 15.9), 9 males and 9 females, all participants suffered from a chronic stroke (mean/SD unknown), CM: First EA group: mean = 4.9 ± 0.9 First ER group: mean = 4.2 ± 1.0 | InMotion2 robotic system | Experimental tasks: reaching targets in a plane. EA group: received divergent force field ER group: received active assist during practice Training parameters: Two weeks of training per cycle, and two cycles in total. After each cycle, subjects switch groups. | Kinematic: the trajectory of the end-effector Clinical: MAS, MSS | MAS: in the first cycle, ER group showed more improvement than EA (2.9 ± 3.2 vs 1.2 ± 3.2), but not significantly. In the second cycle, ER group still showed more improvement than EA (1.4 ± 1.2 vs 0.7 ± 2.3), but not significantly. MSS: in the first cycle, ER group showed more improvement than EA (2.2 ± 2.0 vs 0.8 ± 3.5), but not significantly. In the second cycle, ER group still showed more improvement than EA (1.4 ± 1.3 vs 1.1 ± 1.1), but not significantly. Trajectory of end-effector: no numerical values reported, but authors stated that EA group had significantly straighter (p = 0.028) as well as smoother (p = 0.031) trajectory than ER group | MAS: first cycle 0.53 (medium effect) Second cycle 0.40 (small effect) MSS: first cycle 0.51 (medium effect) Second cycle 0.25 (small effect) | 6/10, high quality |
Participants
Experiment protocols
Outcomes measures
Methodological quality of trials
Eligibility criteria specified | Randomized allocation | Concealed allocation | Baseline similarity | Blinded subjects | Blinded therapists | Blinded assessors | Adequate follow-up | Intention to treat analysis | Comparison between groups | Point estimates and variability | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kappa (mean/SE) | 0.629 ± 0.331 | 0.755 ± 0.228 | − 0.083 ± 0.059a | 0.567 ± 0.273 | 0.270 ± 0.234 | 0.316 ± 0.253 | 0.698 ± 0.187 | 0.025 ± 0.212 | 0.316 ± 0.175 | 1.000 ± 0.000 | 0.161 ± 0.275 |
95% Confidence Interval (CI) | −0.021 to 1.000 | 0.307 to 1.000 | −0.198 to 0.032 | 0.032 to 1.000 | −0.190 to 0.729 | − 0.179 to 0.811 | 0.330 to 1.000 | − 0.390 to 0.440 | −0.027 to 0.659 | 1.000 to 1.000 | −0.378 to 0.700 |
Observed agreement percentage (P0) | 92.31% | 92.31% | 84.62% | 84.62% | 61.54% | 76.92% | 84.62% | 53.82% | 61.54% | 100.00% | 69.23% |
Expected agreement percentage (Pe) | 79.29% | 68.64% | 85.80% | 64.50% | 47.34% | 66.27% | 49.11% | 52.66% | 43.79% | 73.96% | 63.31% |
Eligibility criteria specified | Randomized allocation | Concealed allocation | Baseline similarity | Blinded subjects | Blinded therapists | Blinded assessors | Adequate follow-up | Intention to treat analysis | Comparison between groups | Point estimates and variability | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abdollahi et al. [52] | Yes | 1a | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7/10b |
Bouchard et al. [61] | Yes | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/10 |
Cesqui et al. [58] | Yes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3/10 |
Givon-Mayo et al. [63] | Yes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3/10 |
Huang and Patton [59] | No | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3/10 |
Kahn et al. [55] | Yes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4/10 |
Majeed et al. [62] | Yes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6/10 |
Patton et al. [53] | Yes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5/10 |
Patton et al. [24] | Yes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1/10 |
Rozario et al. [60] | Yes | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4/10 |
Takahashi et al. [56] | Yes | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5/10 |
Timmer-mans et al. [57] | Yes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/10 |
Tropea et al. [54] | Yes | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6/10 |
Assessment of risk of bias
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Other bias | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abdollahi et al. [52] | Lowa | Highb | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Bouchard et al. [61] | Low | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Short training period |
Cesqui et al. [58] | High | High | Unclearc | High | High | High | Small sample size, baseline differences between groups |
Givon-Mayo et al. [63] | Low | High | High | High | High | Unclear | Very small sample size, baseline differences between groups |
Huang and Patton [59] | Low | High | High | High | Low | Low | Short training period |
Kahn et al. [55] | Low | High | High | Low | Unclear | High | Small sample size, short training period |
Majeed et al. [62] | Low | High | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Patton et al. [53] | Low | High | High | Low | Low | Low | Short training period, small sample size |
Patton et al. [24] | High | High | High | High | Low | Low | Short training period |
Rozario et al. [60] | Low | High | High | Low | Low | Low | Small sample size |
Takahashi et al. [56] | Low | High | Low | High | High | Low | Small sample size |
Timmermans et al. [57] | Low | Low | High | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Tropea et al. [54] | Low | High | High | Low | Low | High | Small sample size |