Advanced Robotic Therapy Integrated Centers (ARTIC): an international collaboration facilitating the application of rehabilitation technologies

Hubertus J A van Hedel, Giacomo Severini, Alessandra Scarton, Anne O'Brien, Tamsin Reed, Deborah Gaebler-Spira, Tara Egan, Andreas Meyer-Heim, Judith Graser, Karen Chua, Daniel Zutter, Raoul Schweinfurther, J Carsten Möller, Liliana P Paredes, Alberto Esquenazi, Steffen Berweck, Sebastian Schroeder, Birgit Warken, Anne Chan, Amber Devers, Jakub Petioky, Nam-Jong Paik, Won-Seok Kim, Paolo Bonato, Michael Boninger, ARTIC network, Eric Fabara, Catherine Adans-Dester, Jean O'Brien Murby, Lori Laliberte, Gadi Revivo, Stella Lee, Theresa Toczylowski, Kay Fei Chan, Seng Kwee Wee, Pang Hung Lim, Wei Sheong Lim, Juliana Yun Ying Wang, Wing Kuen Lee, Chui Ni Ong, Cheng Hong Ong, Charlene Cheryl Pereira, Siew Yee Lee, Alexander Dewor, Michael Urban, Tabea Aurich, Anja Lucic, Thomas Nastulla, Katharina Badura, Josephine Steinbichler, Myungki Ji, Yunsung Oh, Rocco Salvatore Calabrò, Leslie van Hiel, Martina Spiess, Lars Lünenburger, Gery Colombo, Irin Maier, Florian Heinen, Ingo Borggraefe, Helene Koenig, Raphael Weinberger, Hubertus J A van Hedel, Giacomo Severini, Alessandra Scarton, Anne O'Brien, Tamsin Reed, Deborah Gaebler-Spira, Tara Egan, Andreas Meyer-Heim, Judith Graser, Karen Chua, Daniel Zutter, Raoul Schweinfurther, J Carsten Möller, Liliana P Paredes, Alberto Esquenazi, Steffen Berweck, Sebastian Schroeder, Birgit Warken, Anne Chan, Amber Devers, Jakub Petioky, Nam-Jong Paik, Won-Seok Kim, Paolo Bonato, Michael Boninger, ARTIC network, Eric Fabara, Catherine Adans-Dester, Jean O'Brien Murby, Lori Laliberte, Gadi Revivo, Stella Lee, Theresa Toczylowski, Kay Fei Chan, Seng Kwee Wee, Pang Hung Lim, Wei Sheong Lim, Juliana Yun Ying Wang, Wing Kuen Lee, Chui Ni Ong, Cheng Hong Ong, Charlene Cheryl Pereira, Siew Yee Lee, Alexander Dewor, Michael Urban, Tabea Aurich, Anja Lucic, Thomas Nastulla, Katharina Badura, Josephine Steinbichler, Myungki Ji, Yunsung Oh, Rocco Salvatore Calabrò, Leslie van Hiel, Martina Spiess, Lars Lünenburger, Gery Colombo, Irin Maier, Florian Heinen, Ingo Borggraefe, Helene Koenig, Raphael Weinberger

Abstract

Background: The application of rehabilitation robots has grown during the last decade. While meta-analyses have shown beneficial effects of robotic interventions for some patient groups, the evidence is less in others. We established the Advanced Robotic Therapy Integrated Centers (ARTIC) network with the goal of advancing the science and clinical practice of rehabilitation robotics. The investigators hope to exploit variations in practice to learn about current clinical application and outcomes. The aim of this paper is to introduce the ARTIC network to the clinical and research community, present the initial data set and its characteristics and compare the outcome data collected so far with data from prior studies.

Methods: ARTIC is a pragmatic observational study of clinical care. The database includes patients with various neurological and gait deficits who used the driven gait orthosis Lokomat® as part of their treatment. Patient characteristics, diagnosis-specific information, and indicators of impairment severity are collected. Core clinical assessments include the 10-Meter Walk Test and the Goal Attainment Scaling. Data from each Lokomat® training session are automatically collected.

Results: At time of analysis, the database contained data collected from 595 patients (cerebral palsy: n = 208; stroke: n = 129; spinal cord injury: n = 93; traumatic brain injury: n = 39; and various other diagnoses: n = 126). At onset, average walking speeds were slow. The training intensity increased from the first to the final therapy session and most patients achieved their goals.

Conclusions: The characteristics of the patients matched epidemiological data for the target populations. When patient characteristics differed from epidemiological data, this was mainly due to the selection criteria used to assess eligibility for Lokomat® training. While patients included in randomized controlled interventional trials have to fulfill many inclusion and exclusion criteria, the only selection criteria applying to patients in the ARTIC database are those required for use of the Lokomat®. We suggest that the ARTIC network offers an opportunity to investigate the clinical application and effectiveness of rehabilitation technologies for various diagnoses. Due to the standardization of assessments and the use of a common technology, this network could serve as a basis for researchers interested in specific interventional studies expanding beyond the Lokomat®.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The local IRB approved the study for each site. Consent was given by the participants or their legal representatives in accordance with ethical guidelines.

Consent for publication

We obtained consent for publication of Fig. 1a from that person and from the parent of the child depicted in Fig. 1b.

Competing interests

The company Hocoma currently supports this network by means of financial support for programming the database and online meetings. Hocoma also provides resources to aid with communication between network members. However, Hocoma has no influence on the design of the study, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript nor decisions made within the ARTIC network.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Lokomat® system (of different generations) with (a) adult leg orthoses and (b) pediatric leg orthoses. Patients walk on a treadmill belt, are weight supported, and the exoskeleton device guides the legs through a physiological walking pattern
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
ARTIC Database containing information on patient demographics, diagnosis and severity, assessments and training parameters. Training parameters are stored for each separate training session to enable an evaluation over time. The 10-Meter Walk Test and the Goal Attainment Scaling are two core clinical assessments
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Clinical characteristics of the patients. (a) The largest group of patients are those with a Cerebral Palsy (CP), followed by stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). (b) The clinical diagnosis according to Bax and (c) the severity grade according to the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) are shown for patients with CP. (d) For patients with stroke, the distribution between patients with ischemic versus hemorrhagic stroke is shown. (e) For patients with SCI, the ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) is shown and reflects the severity (AIS A, sensorimotor complete; AIS B motor complete, sensory incomplete; AIS C and D sensorimotor incomplete with AIS C indicating that less than half of the muscles below the neurological level of lesion have a muscle grade of 3 or more and AIS D indicating that half or more of the muscles below the neurological level of lesion have a grade 3 or higher). (f) Finally, the distribution of the neurological level of lesion is presented. Abbreviations: C, cervical; T, thoracic; L, lumbar and S, Sacral
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Histograms showing the distribution of age for patients with Cerebral Palsy (CP), stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Please note the different scales on the y-axes. Grey lines indicate distributions of age, which are based on numbers from the following epidemiological studies: stroke [40], SCI [53], and TBI [61]
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Clinical outcome measures. On the left are the average and SD times (in seconds) presented that the patients need to walk 10 m at onset of Lokomat® training. For some patient groups, results are separated according to severity grades (e.g. the Gross Motor Function Classification Systems levels I, II, III or IV for patients with CP or the ASIA Impairment Scales C and D for patients with spinal cord injury) or etiology of stroke (ischemic versus hemorrhagic). Displayed at the right are the Goal Attainment Scores. Despite poor initial walking function, many patients achieved their goals (Goal Attainment Scores 0, 1 or 2; encircled in blue)

References

    1. Mehrholz J, Pohl M, Platz T, Kugler J, Elsner B. Electromechanical and robot-assisted arm training for improving activities of daily living, arm function, and arm muscle strength after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(11):CD006876. 10.1002/14651858.CD006876.pub4.
    1. Mehrholz J, Thomas S, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M, Elsner B. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;5:CD006185.
    1. Mehrholz J, Kugler J, Pohl M. Locomotor training for walking after spinal cord injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD006676.
    1. Swinnen E, Duerinck S, Baeyens JP, Meeusen R, Kerckhofs E. Effectiveness of robot-assisted gait training in persons with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42:520–526. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0538.
    1. Swinnen E, Beckwee D, Pinte D, Meeusen R, Baeyens JP, Kerckhofs E. Treadmill training in multiple sclerosis: can body weight support or robot assistance provide added value? A systematic review Mult Scler Int. 2012;2012:240274.
    1. Esquenazi A, Lee S, Packel AT, Braitman L. A randomized comparative study of manually assisted versus robotic-assisted body weight supported treadmill training in persons with a traumatic brain injury. PM R. 2013;5:280–290. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.10.009.
    1. Druzbicki M, Rusek W, Snela S, et al. Functional effects of robotic-assisted locomotor treadmill thearapy in children with cerebral palsy. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45:358–363. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1114.
    1. Wallard L, Dietrich G, Kerlirzin Y, Bredin J. Robotic-assisted gait training improves walking abilities in diplegic children with cerebral palsy. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2017;21:557–564. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2017.01.012.
    1. Aurich-Schuler T, Warken B, Graser JV, et al. Practical recommendations for robot-assisted treadmill therapy (Lokomat) in children with cerebral palsy: indications, goal setting, and clinical implementation within the WHO-ICF framework. Neuropediatrics. 2015;46:248–260. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1550150.
    1. Dorenkamp S, Mesters I, Teijink J, de Bie R. Difficulties of using single-diseased guidelines to treat patients with multiple diseases. Front Public Health. 2015;3:67. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00067.
    1. Ornstein SM, Nietert PJ, Jenkins RG, Litvin CB. The prevalence of chronic diseases and multimorbidity in primary care practice: a PPRNet report. J Am Board Fam Med. 2013;26:518–524. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2013.05.130012.
    1. Curt A, Schwab ME, Dietz V. Providing the clinical basis for new interventional therapies: refined diagnosis and assessment of recovery after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2004;42:1–6. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101558.
    1. Whiteneck G, Dijkers M, Gassaway J, Lammertse DP. The SCIRehab project: classification and quantification of spinal cord injury rehabilitation treatments. Preface J Spinal Cord Med. 2009;32:249–250.
    1. Colombo G, Wirz M, Dietz V. Driven gait orthosis for improvement of locomotor training in paraplegic patients. Spinal Cord. 2001;39:252–255. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101154.
    1. Brutsch K, Koenig A, Zimmerli L, et al. Virtual reality for enhancement of robot-assisted gait training in children with central gait disorders. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43:493–499. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0802.
    1. Labruyere R, Gerber CN, Birrer-Brutsch K, Meyer-Heim A, van Hedel HJ. Requirements for and impact of a serious game for neuro-pediatric robot-assisted gait training. Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34:3906–3915. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.031.
    1. Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F, et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011) J Spinal Cord Med. 2011;34:535–546. doi: 10.1179/204577211X13207446293695.
    1. Bax M, Goldstein M, Rosenbaum P, et al. Proposed definition and classification of cerebral palsy, April 2005. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2005;47:571–576. doi: 10.1017/S001216220500112X.
    1. Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, Russell D, Wood E, Galuppi B. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39:214–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1997.tb07414.x.
    1. Wade DT, Wood VA, Heller A, Maggs J, Langton HR. Walking after stroke. Measurement and recovery over the first 3 months. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1987;19:25–30.
    1. Rossier P, Wade DT. Validity and reliability comparison of 4 mobility measures in patients presenting with neurologic impairment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:9–13. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.9396.
    1. van Hedel HJ, Wirz M, Curt A. Improving walking assessment in subjects with an incomplete spinal cord injury: responsiveness. Spinal Cord. 2006;44:352–356. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101853.
    1. van Hedel HJ, Wirz M, Dietz V. Assessing walking ability in subjects with spinal cord injury: validity and reliability of 3 walking tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:190–196. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.02.010.
    1. van Hedel HJ, Group ES Gait speed in relation to categories of functional ambulation after spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:343–350. doi: 10.1177/1545968308324224.
    1. Salbach NM, Mayo NE, Higgins J, Ahmed S, Finch LE, Richards CL. Responsiveness and predictability of gait speed and other disability measures in acute stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:1204–1212. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.24907.
    1. Graser JV, Letsch C, van Hedel HJ. Reliability of timed walking tests and temporo-spatial gait parameters in youths with neurological gait disorders. BMC Neurol. 2016;16:15. doi: 10.1186/s12883-016-0538-y.
    1. Kiresuk TJ, Sherman RE. Goal attainment scaling: a general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Ment Health J. 1968;4:443–453. doi: 10.1007/BF01530764.
    1. Steenbeek D, Meester-Delver A, Becher JG, Lankhorst GJ. The effect of botulinum toxin type a treatment of the lower extremity on the level of functional abilities in children with cerebral palsy: evaluation with goal attainment scaling. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:274–282. doi: 10.1191/0269215505cr859oa.
    1. Bouwens SF, van Heugten CM, Verhey FR. The practical use of goal attainment scaling for people with acquired brain injury who receive cognitive rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23:310–320. doi: 10.1177/0269215508101744.
    1. Steenbeek D, Ketelaar M, Lindeman E, Galama K, Gorter JW. Interrater reliability of goal attainment scaling in rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:429–435. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.013.
    1. Steenbeek D, Ketelaar M, Galama K, Gorter JW. Goal attainment scaling in paediatric rehabilitation: a critical review of the literature. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007;49:550–556. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00550.x.
    1. Hurn J, Kneebone I, Cropley M. Goal setting as an outcome measure: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20:756–772. doi: 10.1177/0269215506070793.
    1. Bohannon RW, Smith MB. Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Phys Ther. 1987;67:206–207. doi: 10.1093/ptj/67.2.206.
    1. Gregson JM, Leathley MJ, Moore AP, Smith TL, Sharma AK, Watkins CL. Reliability of measurements of muscle tone and muscle power in stroke patients. Age Ageing. 2000;29:223–228. doi: 10.1093/ageing/29.3.223.
    1. Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Sherwin FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6–18.
    1. Msall ME, DiGaudio K, Rogers BT, et al. The functional independence measure for children (WeeFIM). Conceptual basis and pilot use in children with developmental disabilities. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1994;33:421–430. doi: 10.1177/000992289403300708.
    1. Tollanes MC, Strandberg-Larsen K, Forthun I, et al. Cohort profile: cerebral palsy in the Norwegian and Danish birth cohorts (MOBAND-CP) BMJ Open. 2016;6:e012777. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012777.
    1. Sellier E, Surman G, Himmelmann K, et al. Trends in prevalence of cerebral palsy in children born with a birthweight of 2,500 g or over in Europe from 1980 to 1998. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:635–642. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9474-0.
    1. Christensen D, Van Naarden BK, Doernberg NS, et al. Prevalence of cerebral palsy, co-occurring autism spectrum disorders, and motor functioning - autism and developmental disabilities monitoring network, USA, 2008. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014;56:59–65. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12268.
    1. Feigin VL, Krishnamurthi RV, Parmar P, et al. Update on the global burden of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke in 1990-2013: the GBD 2013 study. Neuroepidemiology. 2015;45:161–176. doi: 10.1159/000441085.
    1. Arnao V, Acciarresi M, Cittadini E, Caso V. Stroke incidence, prevalence and mortality in women worldwide. Int J Stroke. 2016;11:287–301. doi: 10.1177/1747493016632245.
    1. Hall MJ, Levant S, DeFrances CJ. Hospitalization for stroke in U.S. hospitals, 1989–2009. NCHS data brief, no 95. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2012.
    1. Bang DH, Shin WS. Effects of robot-assisted gait training on spatiotemporal gait parameters and balance in patients with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled pilot trial. NeuroRehabilitation. 2016;38:343–349. doi: 10.3233/NRE-161325.
    1. Hidler J, Nichols D, Pelliccio M, et al. Multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Lokomat in subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:5–13. doi: 10.1177/1545968308326632.
    1. Husemann B, Muller F, Krewer C, Heller S, Koenig E. Effects of locomotion training with assistance of a robot-driven gait orthosis in hemiparetic patients after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Stroke. 2007;38:349–354. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000254607.48765.cb.
    1. Kelley CP, Childress J, Boake C, Noser EA. Over-ground and robotic-assisted locomotor training in adults with chronic stroke: a blinded randomized clinical trial. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8:161–168. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2012.714052.
    1. Mayr A, Kofler M, Quirbach E, Matzak H, Frohlich K, Saltuari L. Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the Lokomat gait orthosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:307–314. doi: 10.1177/1545968307300697.
    1. Schwartz I, Sajin A, Fisher I, et al. The effectiveness of locomotor therapy using robotic-assisted gait training in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. PM R. 2009;1:516–523. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.03.009.
    1. van Nunen MP, Gerrits KH, Konijnenbelt M, Janssen TW, de Haan A. Recovery of walking ability using a robotic device in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled study. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2015;10:141–148. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2013.873489.
    1. Westlake KP, Patten C. Pilot study of Lokomat versus manual-assisted treadmill training for locomotor recovery post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2009;6:18. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-6-18.
    1. Swinnen E, Beckwee D, Meeusen R, Baeyens JP, Kerckhofs E. Does robot-assisted gait rehabilitation improve balance in stroke patients? A systematic review. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2014;21:87–100. doi: 10.1310/tsr2102-87.
    1. Veerbeek JM, van Wegen EEH, van Peppen RPS, et al. KNGF clinical practice guideline for physical therapy in patients with stroke: Royal Dutch Society for physical therapy. 2014.
    1. Center NSCIS. Complete public version of the 2016 annual statistical report for the spinal cord injury model systems. Birmingham: University of Alabama at Birmingham; 2016.
    1. Gandhi P, Chan K, Verrier MC, Pakosh M, Musselman KE. Training to improve walking after pediatric spinal cord injury: a systematic review of parameters and walking outcomes. J Neurotraum. 2017;34:1713–1725. doi: 10.1089/neu.2016.4501.
    1. Alcobendas-Maestro M, Esclarin-Ruz A, Casado-Lopez RM, et al. Lokomat robotic-assisted versus Overground training within 3 to 6 months of incomplete spinal cord lesion: randomized controlled trial. Neurorehab Neural Re. 2012;26:1058–1063. doi: 10.1177/1545968312448232.
    1. Esclarin-Ruz A, Alcobendas-Maestro M, Casado-Lopez R, et al. A comparison of robotic walking therapy and conventional walking therapy in individuals with upper versus lower motor neuron lesions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2014;95:1023–1031. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.12.017.
    1. Field-Fote EC, Roach KE. Influence of a locomotor training approach on walking speed and distance in people with chronic spinal cord injury: a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2011;91:48–60. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20090359.
    1. Labruyere R, van Hedel HJ. Strength training versus robot-assisted gait training after incomplete spinal cord injury: a randomized pilot study in patients depending on walking assistance. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014;11:4. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-4.
    1. Lam T, Pauhl K, Ferguson A, Malik RN, Krassioukov A, Eng JJ. Training with robot-applied resistance in people with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury: pilot study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52:113–129. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2014.03.0090.
    1. Wirz M, Mach O, Maier D, Benito-Penalva J, Taylor J, Esclarin A, Dietz V. Effectiveness of Automated Locomotor Training in Patients with Acute Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Trial. J Neurotrauma. 2016. 10.1089/neu.2016.4643.
    1. Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Data and Statistical Center . National Database: 2016 profile of people within the traumatic brain injury model systems. Englewood: Craig Hospital; 2016.
    1. Faul M, Xu L, Wald MM, Coronado VG. Traumatic brain injury in the United States: emergency department visits, hospitalizations and deaths 2002–2006. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2010.
    1. Boyd LA, Hayward KS, Ward NS, et al. Biomarkers of stroke recovery: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Int J Stroke. 2017;12:480–493. doi: 10.1177/1747493017714176.
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687.
    1. Aurich-Schuler T, Grob F, van Hedel HJA, Labruyere R. Can Lokomat therapy with children and adolescents be improved? An adaptive clinical pilot trial comparing guidance force, path control, and FreeD. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation. 2017;14:14(1):76.
    1. van Kammen K, Boonstra AM, van der Woude LHV, Reinders-Messelink HA, den Otter R. The combined effects of guidance force, bodyweight support and gait speed on muscle activity during able-bodied walking in the Lokomat. Clin Biomech. 2016;36:65–73. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2016.04.013.
    1. Schuler TA, Muller R, van Hedel HJA. Leg surface electromyography patterns in children with neuro-orthopedic disorders walking on a treadmill unassisted and assisted by a robot with and without encouragement. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013;10:78.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe