Table 1: Studies for question 1.

First Author/yearStudy DesignEvidence Level [16]DurationSettingCountrySample sizeAge meanAge rangeCharacteristicsGenderSamplingTechnologyDescription
MF

Aisen [17] 1997Intervention studyIII-1Overall duration not stated. Robot trained 4-5 hrs/wk on top of conventional training. Sham trained 1-2 sessions/wkHospital rehabilitation clinicUSA20 Robot trained—45–68; Sham trained—38–72Post-stroke, hemiplegia119Pseudorandomised“MIT-MANUS”Robotic upper limb exoskeleton.
Morvan [18] 1997Qualitative studyIV<1 mnth§France28§§Young with either tetraplegia, myopathies or spasticity #Not stated“MASTER” robotic arm systemPsychological preparedness by older people for robots.
Krebs [19] 1998Intervention studyIII-1Overall duration not stated. Robot trained 4-5 hrs/wk on top of conventional training. Sham trained 1 sessions/wkHospital rehabilitation clinicUSA20Robot trained—58.5; Sham trained—63§§#Pseudorandomised“MIT-MANUS”Robotic upper limb exoskeleton.
Cozens [20]1999Intervention studyIII-3<1 dLaboratoryEngland10§47–69Stroke or MS with upper limb weakness#PseudorandomisedNo name providedRobotic upper limb apparatus.
Volpe [21] 1999Intervention studyIII-11 wk treatment, 3 yr follow-upHospital rehabilitation clinicUSA20 total, 12 of 20 measureat 3 yrsRobot trained— Sham trained— §Post-stroke75Pseudorandomised“MIT-MANUS”Robotic upper limb exoskeleton.
Reinkensmeyer [22] 1999Intervention studyIII-3<1 d§USA5§24–79Brain injury (TBA/ABI)#ConvenienceRobotic armArm guidance system.
Burgar[23] 2000Intervention study (x3)III-21 wk–2 mnthsLaboratoryUSA24§21–80Post-stroke hemiplegia#ConvenienceMIMEMirror Image Motion Enabler (MIME).
Volpe [24] 2000Intervention studyIII-1  hr sessions
5 d/wk
Hospital rehabilitation clinicUSA5664.527–83Post-stroke hemiplegia3026Randomised control“MIT-MANUS”Robotic upper limb exoskeleton.
Jezernik [25] 2003Intervention studyIII-3  hr sessionsSpinal cord injury clinicSwitzerland 6§38–73Spinal cord#§“Lokomat”Robotic gait exoskeleton.
Loureiro [26] 2003Intervention studyIII-39 sessions over 3 wksHospitalEngland30§§Stroke hemiplegia#Randomised control“GENTLE/S”Haptic upper limb system.
Rentschler [13] 2003Technical reportIV<1 dLaboratoryUSA12929Healthy1Case studyPAMAPersonal adaptive mobility aid (PAMA).
Winchester [27] 2005OtherIII-312 wksLaboratoryUSA4§20–49Spinal cord injury4Convenience“Lokomat”Robotic gait exoskeleton.
Spenko [28] 2006OtherIII-3<1 dLaboratoryUSA6§85–95Healthy older15Convenience“Smartcane” and “Smart walker”Walking aid for mobility and monitoring.
Isreal[29] 2006OtherIII-35 sessionsLaboratoryUSA12§15–59Spinal cord injury#Convenience“Lokomat”Robotic gait exoskeleton.
Mehrholz[30] 2007Systematic reviewIn/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/aAssisted gait deviceRobotic-assisted gait training.
Rocon [31] 2007OtherIII-3<1 dLaboratorySpain1052.3§Tremor73Convenience“WOTAS”Robotic exoskeleton to reduce arm tremor.
Saeki [32] 2008OtherIV6 mnthsLaboratoryJapan148n/aNeuro-logical1N/a“Bi-Manu-Track”Robotic arm trainer.
Hidler [33] 2008Intervention studyIII-26 mnthsLaboratoryUSA544.124–59Spinal cord injury#Randomised control“Lokomat”Robotic gait exoskeleton.
Janssen and Pringle [34] 2008Intervention studyIII-36 wksLaboratoryUSA123620–70Spinal cord injury12Convenience“ERGYS 1”Functional electrical stimulator leg ergometry.
Krebs [35] 2008Intervention studyIII-26 wksRehabilitation clinicUSA4757.527–79Stroke#Pre-post single group“MIT-MANUS”Robotic hand visuomotorguidancesystem.
Patton [36] 2008Othern/an/an/aUSAn/an/an/an/an/an/a“KineAssist”Discussion paper on robot to improve balance and gait.
Querry [37] 2008Intervention studyIII-2<1 dLaboratoryUSA2635.5§Spinal cord injury179Non-randomised control“Lokomat”Robotic gait exoskeleton.
Rentschler [38] 2008Intervention studyIII-21 dLaboratoryUSA1785.3§Healthy#Pseudorandomised“GUIDO”Robotic walker.
Galluppi [39] 2009Intervention studyIV§HospitalItaly§§§§#§Robotic wheelchairCollaborative control robotic wheelchair.
Shimada [40] 2009Intervention studyIII-2<6 mthsRetirement villageJapan1578.372–85Healthy015ConvenienceStride assistance systemRobotic exoskeleton stride assistance system to assist with walking but provide resistance for physical improvement.
Flinn [41] 2009Case studyIV6 wksHospitalUSA148n/aPost-stroken/an/a“InMotion2”Upper limb visuomotor guidance system.
Zeng [42] 2009Intervention studyIV§Hospital rehabilitation clinicSingapore3§16–48Cerebral palsy/TBI#ConvenienceRobotic wheelchairCollaborative control robotic wheelchair.
Lo [43] 2010Intervention studyII12 weeks (total of 36 hours training)Multi-rehabilitation centresUSA12764.6§>6 months post-stroke1225Random control trialModular robotic system (no name) for upper arm guidance. Modular robotic upper arm guidance system for shoulder, forearm, wrist, and grasping movements.
Frizera Neto[44] 2010Intervention studyIII-3<1 dIndoor installationSpain5§§Healthy#Convenience“SIMBIOSIS”Robotic walker—upper body force interaction.
Sharma [45] 2010Intervention studyIII-3<1 dLaboratoryUSA1938.5§Healthy136Convenience“Drive Safe” smart wheelchairsJoystick driven, sensor controlled wheelchairs.
Wolpaw [46] 2010Expert opinionn/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/aBrain-computer interfacesOpinion based article on the progression in brain-computer interfaces and suggestions on where the technology paradigm should progress.
Galvez [47] 2011Intervention studyIII-3n/aLaboratoryUSA4§24–62Spinal cord injury#ConvenienceSensor orthosesRobotic body-weight support treadmill.
Turiel [48] 2011Intervention studyIII-31 hr/d, 5 d/wk, 30–45 mins/sessionLaboratoryItaly1450.6n/aSpinal cord injury104Pre-post single group“Lokomat”Robotic gait exoskeleton.
Schwartz [49] 2011Intervention studyIII-32-3 times/wk,
30–45 mins/session
Rehabilitaion clinicIsrael2842n/aSpinal cord injury1810Single group, matched historical control“Lokomat”Robotic gait exoskeleton.
Conroy[50] 2011Intervention studyII60 mins, 3 times/wk for 6 wksLaboratoryUSA6257.8n/aStroke, hemiplegia upper limb3428Random control trial“InMotion2”Upper limb visuomotor guidance system. 2D versus 3D including antigravity training, comparing the combination of vertical and planar robot with planar alone.
Carlson and Demiris[51] 2012Intervention studyIII-2<1 d,  min sessionsSimulated homeEngland21§17–47Healthy#ConvenienceNo nameCollaborative controlled robotic wheelchair.

#No gender given, §Not given.