AzTrials
AzTrials

Apoplexy; StrokeNCT04304976

Clinical Trial ROBERT® - Project Active Training

A study testing ROBERT® in people with Apoplexy; Stroke and Spinal Cord Injuries, run by Lifescience-Robotics at 1 site in Denmark.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The overall purpose with this clinical trial is to, monitor and secure ROBERT®'s clinical performance and safety in a clinical environment in the regional hospital North Denmark, Neuro Unit North. The purpose of the study is to investigate if ROBERT® has the ability to 1. Perform guided active training. 2. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Apoplexy; Stroke, Spinal Cord Injuries, Safety
What is being tested?
ROBERT®
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
8 participants
Where
1 siteDenmark
Study dates
27 Nov 2019to 21 Apr 2020
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Hospitalised patients at Neuro Unit North, during the trial period.
  • 18 years or older.
  • Can read, understand and speak Danish
  • Reduced motor function in lower extremities.

Who cannot join

  • No able to sign informed consent.
  • Cannot read, understand or speak Danish
  • Patients with unstable fractures in columna, pelvis or lower extremities.
  • Patients with the risk of ulcers, or with exceedingly sensitive skin.
  • The patient is refusing to train with ROBERT®

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Denmark1 site

  • Region Hospital, Neuro Unit Nord.

    Frederikshavn, North Denmark, 9900

Other trials in Denmark

About this study

The overall purpose with this clinical trial is to, monitor and secure ROBERT®'s clinical performance and safety in a clinical environment in the regional hospital North Denmark, Neuro Unit North. The purpose of the study is to investigate if ROBERT® has the ability to 1. Perform guided active training. 2. Perform resistance based active training. And validate the safety of ROBERT® in a clinical environment.

Being tested
ROBERT®
Medical subject headings
Stroke, Spinal Cord Injuries

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • ROBERT®Device

    Robotic Rehabilitation intervention ROBERT®, designed for early, and supplementary therapy of patients.

Study groups in NCT04304976
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Training with ROBERT® PassiveExperimentalTraining performed with ROBERT® in passive mode, resulting in active assistive training.
Receives: Device: ROBERT®
Training with ROBERT® ActiveExperimentalTraning performed with ROBERT® in Active mode, resulting in active resistive training.
Receives: Device: ROBERT®

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Active training and assistive training capabilities (3 active and 3 passive motions): evaluated as passed/not passed

    1. Active training capabilities will be assessed, 3 active motions are planned (the therapist has to be active) by the therapist, and manually performed by hand. The resistance perceived by the therapist is then compared to the expert opinion of the therapist to evaluate if this correlates with, small, medium, and large resistance. This is evaluated as passed/not passed for all 3 motions
    2. Active assistive training capabilities will be assessed: 3 passive motions are planned (the robot moves, the therapist follows movement), by the therapist and the robot starts performing the motions, the therapist performs a small, moderate and large assistive movement in conjunction with the robot. The results in % of activity in the path of motion are displayed, and the therapist evaluates if this is in agreement with what they would categorise as a small, moderate and large assistive movement respectively. This is evaluated as passed/not passed for all 3 motions.

    Measured: Up to 19 weeks

  2. Safety, Capture adverse events.

    Safety is evaluated during patient use, nr of treatment-related adverse events is recorded during training sessions.

    Measured: Up to 19 weeks

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted12 Mar 2020
  2. Study start27 Nov 2019
  3. Primary completion16 Jan 2020
  4. Study completion21 Apr 2020

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Device feasibility
Allocation
Non-randomised
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
8 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04304976
Sponsor's protocol ID
N-20190038
Status last verified
Mar 2020
First submitted
26 Feb 2020
Last updated
21 Feb 2021
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Wunsch H, Guerra C, Barnato AE, Angus DC, Li G, Linde-Zwirble WT. Three-year outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries who survive intensive care. JAMA. 2010 Mar 3;303(9):849-56. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.216.

    PubMed 20197531

  • Needham DM, Davidson J, Cohen H, Hopkins RO, Weinert C, Wunsch H, Zawistowski C, Bemis-Dougherty A, Berney SC, Bienvenu OJ, Brady SL, Brodsky MB, Denehy L, Elliott D, Flatley C, Harabin AL, Jones C, Louis D, Meltzer W, Muldoon SR, Palmer JB, Perme C, Robinson M, Schmidt DM, Scruth E, Spill GR, Storey CP, Render M, Votto J, Harvey MA. Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders' conference. Crit Care Med. 2012 Feb;40(2):502-9. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318232da75.

    PubMed 21946660

  • I. Com, Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health. 2017.

  • "NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS public health challenges WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data," 2006.

  • Wist S, Clivaz J, Sattelmayer M. Muscle strengthening for hemiparesis after stroke: A meta-analysis. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2016 Apr;59(2):114-24. doi: 10.1016/j.rehab.2016.02.001. Epub 2016 Mar 8.

    PubMed 26969343

  • English C, Bernhardt J, Crotty M, Esterman A, Segal L, Hillier S. Circuit class therapy or seven-day week therapy for increasing rehabilitation intensity of therapy after stroke (CIRCIT): a randomized controlled trial. Int J Stroke. 2015 Jun;10(4):594-602. doi: 10.1111/ijs.12470. Epub 2015 Mar 19.

    PubMed 25790018

  • Sarkies MN, White J, Henderson K, Haas R, Bowles J; Evidence Translation in Allied Health (EviTAH) Group. Additional weekend allied health services reduce length of stay in subacute rehabilitation wards but their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are unclear in acute general medical and surgical hospital wards: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2018 Jul;64(3):142-158. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2018.05.004. Epub 2018 Jun 19.

    PubMed 29929739

  • Peiris CL, Taylor NF, Shields N. Extra physical therapy reduces patient length of stay and improves functional outcomes and quality of life in people with acute or subacute conditions: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011 Sep;92(9):1490-500. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.04.005.

    PubMed 21878220

  • Peiris CL, Shields N, Brusco NK, Watts JJ, Taylor NF. Additional Physical Therapy Services Reduce Length of Stay and Improve Health Outcomes in People With Acute and Subacute Conditions: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Nov;99(11):2299-2312. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.03.005. Epub 2018 Apr 7.

    PubMed 29634915

  • Lohse KR, Lang CE, Boyd LA. Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2014 Jul;45(7):2053-8. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.004695. Epub 2014 May 27.

    PubMed 24867924

  • Lang CE, Lohse KR, Birkenmeier RL. Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: prescribing motor therapy after stroke. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015 Dec;28(6):549-55. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000256.

    PubMed 26402404

  • "Ét sikkert og sammenhaengende sundhedsnetvaerk for alle."

  • Masiero S, Poli P, Rosati G, Zanotto D, Iosa M, Paolucci S, Morone G. The value of robotic systems in stroke rehabilitation. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014 Mar;11(2):187-98. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2014.882766. Epub 2014 Jan 30.

    PubMed 24479445

  • Semprini M, Laffranchi M, Sanguineti V, Avanzino L, De Icco R, De Michieli L, Chiappalone M. Technological Approaches for Neurorehabilitation: From Robotic Devices to Brain Stimulation and Beyond. Front Neurol. 2018 Apr 9;9:212. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00212. eCollection 2018.

    PubMed 29686644

  • Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009 Aug;8(8):741-54. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70150-4.

    PubMed 19608100

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing ROBERT® in people with Apoplexy; Stroke and Spinal Cord Injuries, run by Lifescience-Robotics at 1 site in Denmark.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Feb 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Denmark. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Active training and assistive training capabilities (3 active and 3 passive motions): evaluated as passed/not passed (time frame: Up to 19 weeks). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04304976, which also lists 15 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Feb 2021.

AzTrials uses cookies for analytics and advertising. You can accept or reject them; the site works either way. Privacy Policy.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in