StrokeSULLRONCT07768683
Stroke Upper Limb Rehabilitation With Robot Operators: a Synergistic Approach for Human-Robot Interaction and Rehabilitative Trials.
A study testing Upper Limb robotic training in people with Stroke, run by Villa Beretta Rehabilitation Center at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
In clinical scenario, clinical scales and kinematic analysis are usually used for the evaluation of patients. However, these methods are limited, since they may suffer from the lack of objectivity and sensitivity. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke
- What is being tested?
- Upper Limb robotic training
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 8 May 2025to 12 May 2026
- 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
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adult subjects (aged ≥18 years old)
- Non orthopaedic condition at upper limb
- No neurological or motor impairment Exclusion criteria for healthy subjects
- Physical conditions that can alter normal biomechanics
- Pregnant or nursing women
- No written informed consent
Show all 11Show fewer
- Active implantable devices (e.g., pacemaker)
- Adult subjects (aged ≥18 years old)
- Subjects suffering from subacute and/or chronic stroke disability
- Coming from ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke
- With a level of motor impairment defined by a minimum residual motion corresponding to Motricity Index ≥ 39.
Who cannot join
- Subjects with a high level of spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale: In general >3 except for motorized joints which may be >2)
- Pain in the affected upper limb (Numeric Rating Scale > 6)
- Severe psychiatric disorder
- Permanent neurologic symptoms present immediately before stroke
- Physical conditions that can alter normal biomechanics (e.g., recent sprains or injuries, etc.)
- Pregnant or nursing women
Show all 9Show fewer
- No written informed consent from the patient or the legal representative
- Active implantable devices (e.g., pacemaker)
- Unstable medical condition
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Riabilitazione Dell'Arto Superiore in Soggetti Con Esiti di Ictus Con Dispositivi Robotizzati: un Approccio Sinergico Per Valutare l'Interazione Uomo-robot e Gli Effetti Dell'Intervento Riabilitativo
In clinical scenario, clinical scales and kinematic analysis are usually used for the evaluation of patients. However, these methods are limited, since they may suffer from the lack of objectivity and sensitivity. Synergies go beyond pure kinematics and allow to directly understand the neural mechanisms underlying the motor impairment. Synergy analysis has been exploited for understanding physiological mechanisms in healthy subjects, but only few studies analyzed muscle synergies on patients during rehabilitation. In order to translate this methodology to the clinical practice, there is the need of comprehensive and structured studies. However, only few pilot studies are available that analyzed synergies during rehabilitation. Thus, in this study we aimed at filling this gap by analyzing synergies during human-robot interaction when using an end-effector robot and an exoskeleton robot and by assessing in detail the modifications of synergies after robotic rehabilitation.
Read the detailed description
The EU is under demographic aging with the median age of the population rising from 44.4 years in 2022 to an expected 48.8 years in 2070. This projection from the European Commission estimates that in 2070, there will be 1.7 persons over 65 years old for every person between the ages 20 to 64. This shift that is already taking place represents a major challenge to secure quality healthcare and long-term care to the population.
Italy's old-age dependency ratio is predicted to be among the highest ones across the EU. For this reason, a significant budget from Italy's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) was attributed to improve hospitals and research in healthcare. Particularly, there is currently an emphasis in the research related to neurological-motor disorders caused by strokes, these being the third most common source of disability and death in Europe. Loss of autonomy due to brain injuries caused by a stroke can often remain permanent, requiring long-term support of patients.
The use of robots in rehabilitation is now a standard part of the treatment to restore motor functionality, complementing conventional physical therapy. Robots can provide benefits such as sensorimotor stimulation, assistive loads, and targeted, functional movements, all of which have the potential to improve treatment outcome and speed of recovery.
However, the mechanisms of motor recovery induced by robots for rehabilitation is still not clear and many studies are trying to define the optimal use of robots for therapy. Notably, it was found that an individualized selection of practice movements is beneficial to recovery. The role of assistance, resistance and error augmentation has been carefully studied to stimulate an improvement in movement coordination. Breaking down complex tasks into separate planar movements is also considered to enhance treatment.
These studies are able to orient clinicians in the choice of treatment, but there is still a lack of understanding of the physiological mechanisms underlying motor control and therefore of the effects of therapy on the neurological system. A deeper understanding of how muscular activity is controlled by the nervous system could help identify more clearly the mechanisms underlying a patient's disability and how to stimulate effective motor recovery. This would provide with a better assessment of a patient's condition and in turn help develop new and optimized treatments.
A long-standing theory of how the central nervous system (CNS) controls movements is that of muscle synergies. It is believed that the realization of any movement, involving the activation of thousands of neurons, stems from a hierarchical organization from the CNS. A relatively low number of neurological modules would control the simultaneous activation of many specific motor neurons to contract muscles synergistically.
Although there is no definitive proof of the existence of such modules in the spinal cord, many studies have identified the simultaneous co-activation of groups of muscles involved in specific motions. Correct reconstruction of muscle activation signals can be obtained from the low-dimensional information from synergies, revealing the possibility to encode complex movements into a combination of synergy modules. It is important to note that there are many different representations of such "modules", which can be time-invariant or variant as well as space-invariant or variant. This simple representation of muscle activation can be leveraged to analyze motor control, which would allow an assessment of motor functionality at a higher level. The study of muscle synergies in a clinical context could be a significant step forward to an individualized care of patients. It explores a different domain of movement compared to kinematic analysis, namely the modular structure of the neuromotor system, hence complementing the available set of information from a given patient. A notable difference between kinematics and synergistic analysis is the similarity across subjects: the information extracted from muscle synergies has strong similarity between identical subjects compared to kinematic data. This is an important factor to be able to assess a patient's relative condition.
In order to use muscle synergies as biomarkers in the clinic, the scientific literature is still missing a comprehensive analysis acknowledging the reliability of synergies to identify motor impairment, and to which extent it is able to do so. A few studies have started to answer this question by realizing experiments to analyze the stability of muscle synergies across patients, on the upper limb. It was found that synergies are a robust measure when considering variability between subjects for a given movement.
A recent study by Berger et al. has analyzed the effect of cerebellar ataxia on muscle synergies, concluding that the spatio-temporal organization of synergies is indeed affected by damage in the cerebellum. This study, along with others showcases a possible use of the synergistic model to assess a patient's level of damage and their recovery path. Following such results, studies have looked at the effect of rehabilitation and robotic assistance on muscle synergies of stroke-affected patients, either by extracting synergies during therapy or comparing pre- and post-therapy results.
There are still many open questions to solve before applying the method of muscle synergies to a clinical practice. The variables influencing the obtention of muscle synergies are still debated over in the literature: how synergies differ between patients and healthy controls, if there is a constant number of modules that should be used to represent the muscle signals, and the modalities to extract the synergies (number of EMG channels, muscles to consider, algorithms for dimensionality reduction and methods to process EMG data). These are important parameters to decide, which could be better resolved by assessing the reproducibility of muscle synergies of healthy controls between different sessions.
Another question relevant to clinical practice, is to understand how muscle synergies are affected by robotic devices typically used for therapy. Robot-assisted rehabilitation is characterized by two types: end-effector-type and exoskeleton-type rehabilitation robots. Both types showed to have promising results on rehabilitation, but few studies directly compared their effects on patients. A randomized trial analyzed the effects on motor recovery of end-effector robot and exoskeleton, finding greater improvements in the end-effector robotic rehabilitation. No study has yet identified synergy patterns from robotic use to characterize the human-robot interaction in post-stroke patients when using an end-effector robot or an exoskeleton robot. This comparison will be needed in the clinic to assess synergies during robotic rehabilitation as an assessment of patient's progress.
In clinical scenario, clinical scales and kinematic analysis are usually used for the evaluation of patients. However, these methods are limited, since they may suffer from the lack of objectivity and sensitivity. Synergies go beyond pure kinematics and allow to directly understand the neural mechanisms underlying the motor impairment. Synergy analysis has been exploited for understanding physiological mechanisms in healthy subjects, but only few studies analyzed muscle synergies on patients during rehabilitation. In order to translate this methodology to the clinical practice, there is the need of comprehensive and structured studies. However, only few pilot studies are available that analyzed synergies during rehabilitation. Thus, in this study we aimed at filling this gap by analyzing synergies during human-robot interaction when using an end-effector robot and an exoskeleton robot and by assessing the modifications of synergies after robotic rehabilitation in detail. This study is part of the PNRR30 project "Fit4MedRob-Fit for Medical Robotics" (Piano Nazionale Complementare (PNC)-PNC0000007), that aims at improving the current rehabilitation for patients with reduced or absent motor, by means of novel technologies and tools in all the phases of the rehabilitation process. The project includes novel algorithms and diagnostic tools that allow to improve the current rehabilitation protocols. Therefore, the present study will contribute to investigate the effects of robotic rehabilitation therapy on patients suffering from post-stroke motor impairment with the synergy methods. For this purpose, synergies will be analyzed with the SynMMF tool based on the novel mixed-matrix factorization (MMF) and on the SynergyAnalyzer Toolbox that extracts muscle synergies, kinematic-muscular synergies, functional synergies, and synergies with negative weights from EMG and multi-domain data. First, a single-session study will be conducted to evaluate the human-robot interaction, comparing the interaction of post-stroke patients with an upper limb exoskeleton and an upper limb end-effector robot. Then, a longitudinal study will be conducted in which patients are evaluated before and after rehabilitation by investigating the changes in synergies in a wide variety of movements.
This study may deepen the understanding of the mechanisms of motor control while interacting with robotic devices and help to understand better the neural mechanism underlying motor impairment and to improve the motor recovery. We develop in the next section a specific set of hypotheses and objectives that the study will answer.
- Conditions
- Stroke
- Being tested
- Upper Limb robotic training
- Keywords
- Stroke, Robotic rehabilitation, Upper Limb, Muscular synergy
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Upper Limb robotic trainingDevice
30 minutes daily sessions using study upper limb robot, 3 days a week for 4 consecutive weeks, for a total of 12 sessions.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Healthy subject | No intervention | to establish the baseline data related to human-robot interaction, a single session study with both groups of participants will be performed |
| Exoskeleton Group | Experimental | upper limb training with exoskeleton Receives: Device: Upper Limb robotic training |
| End-Effector Group | Experimental | upper limb training with end-effector Receives: Device: Upper Limb robotic training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Outcome Measure
Fugl-Meyr Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) tot A-D (0-66 higher values better performance)
Measured: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Secondary outcomes (5)
Spasticity outcome
Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS): 0-4 lower values absence of spasticity
Measured: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Motor Outcome
Box and Blocks test (BBT): higher values better performance
Measured: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Motor Outcome
Functional Assessement Test for Upper Limb (FAST-UL): 0-15 higer values better performance
Measured: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Pain outcome
Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS): 0-10 0=no pain
Measured: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Motor Outcome
Motricity Index Upper Limb (MI-UL): 0-100 higer values better performance
Measured: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Aug 2026
- Study start8 May 2025
- Primary completion12 May 2026
- Study completion12 May 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Villa Beretta Rehabilitation Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- STIIMA-Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Franco Molteni, Villa Beretta Rehabilitation Center
- Investigators
- Franco Molteni, MD, Principal investigator, Villa Beretta Rehabilitation Center- Valduce Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07768683
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SULLRO
- Acronym
- SULLRO
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 5 Aug 2026
- Last updated
- 17 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Riabilitazione Dell'Arto Superiore in Soggetti Con Esiti di Ictus Con Dispositivi Robotizzati: un Approccio Sinergico Per Valutare l'Interazione Uomo-robot e Gli Effetti Dell'Intervento Riabilitativo
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07768683
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SULLRO / SULLRO
- Conditions
- Stroke
- Keywords
- Stroke, Robotic rehabilitation, Upper Limb, Muscular synergy
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Villa Beretta Rehabilitation CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- STIIMA-Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)
- Study start
- 8 May 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 12 May 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 12 May 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Aug 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
In clinical scenario, clinical scales and kinematic analysis are usually used for the evaluation of patients. However, these methods are limited, since they may suffer from the lack of objectivity and sensitivity. Synergies go beyond pure kinematics and allow to directly understand the neural mechanisms underlying the motor impairment. Synergy analysis has been exploited for understanding physiological mechanisms in healthy subjects, but only few studies analyzed muscle synergies on patients during rehabilitation. In order to translate this methodology to the clinical practice, there is the need of comprehensive and structured studies. However, only few pilot studies are available that analyzed synergies during rehabilitation. Thus, in this study we aimed at filling this gap by analyzing synergies during human-robot interaction when using an end-effector robot and an exoskeleton robot and by assessing in detail the modifications of synergies after robotic rehabilitation.
Detailed description
The EU is under demographic aging with the median age of the population rising from 44.4 years in 2022 to an expected 48.8 years in 2070. This projection from the European Commission estimates that in 2070, there will be 1.7 persons over 65 years old for every person between the ages 20 to 64. This shift that is already taking place represents a major challenge to secure quality healthcare and long-term care to the population.
Italy's old-age dependency ratio is predicted to be among the highest ones across the EU. For this reason, a significant budget from Italy's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) was attributed to improve hospitals and research in healthcare. Particularly, there is currently an emphasis in the research related to neurological-motor disorders caused by strokes, these being the third most common source of disability and death in Europe. Loss of autonomy due to brain injuries caused by a stroke can often remain permanent, requiring long-term support of patients.
The use of robots in rehabilitation is now a standard part of the treatment to restore motor functionality, complementing conventional physical therapy. Robots can provide benefits such as sensorimotor stimulation, assistive loads, and targeted, functional movements, all of which have the potential to improve treatment outcome and speed of recovery.
However, the mechanisms of motor recovery induced by robots for rehabilitation is still not clear and many studies are trying to define the optimal use of robots for therapy. Notably, it was found that an individualized selection of practice movements is beneficial to recovery. The role of assistance, resistance and error augmentation has been carefully studied to stimulate an improvement in movement coordination. Breaking down complex tasks into separate planar movements is also considered to enhance treatment.
These studies are able to orient clinicians in the choice of treatment, but there is still a lack of understanding of the physiological mechanisms underlying motor control and therefore of the effects of therapy on the neurological system. A deeper understanding of how muscular activity is controlled by the nervous system could help identify more clearly the mechanisms underlying a patient's disability and how to stimulate effective motor recovery. This would provide with a better assessment of a patient's condition and in turn help develop new and optimized treatments.
A long-standing theory of how the central nervous system (CNS) controls movements is that of muscle synergies. It is believed that the realization of any movement, involving the activation of thousands of neurons, stems from a hierarchical organization from the CNS. A relatively low number of neurological modules would control the simultaneous activation of many specific motor neurons to contract muscles synergistically.
Although there is no definitive proof of the existence of such modules in the spinal cord, many studies have identified the simultaneous co-activation of groups of muscles involved in specific motions. Correct reconstruction of muscle activation signals can be obtained from the low-dimensional information from synergies, revealing the possibility to encode complex movements into a combination of synergy modules. It is important to note that there are many different representations of such "modules", which can be time-invariant or variant as well as space-invariant or variant. This simple representation of muscle activation can be leveraged to analyze motor control, which would allow an assessment of motor functionality at a higher level. The study of muscle synergies in a clinical context could be a significant step forward to an individualized care of patients. It explores a different domain of movement compared to kinematic analysis, namely the modular structure of the neuromotor system, hence complementing the available set of information from a given patient. A notable difference between kinematics and synergistic analysis is the similarity across subjects: the information extracted from muscle synergies has strong similarity between identical subjects compared to kinematic data. This is an important factor to be able to assess a patient's relative condition.
In order to use muscle synergies as biomarkers in the clinic, the scientific literature is still missing a comprehensive analysis acknowledging the reliability of synergies to identify motor impairment, and to which extent it is able to do so. A few studies have started to answer this question by realizing experiments to analyze the stability of muscle synergies across patients, on the upper limb. It was found that synergies are a robust measure when considering variability between subjects for a given movement.
A recent study by Berger et al. has analyzed the effect of cerebellar ataxia on muscle synergies, concluding that the spatio-temporal organization of synergies is indeed affected by damage in the cerebellum. This study, along with others showcases a possible use of the synergistic model to assess a patient's level of damage and their recovery path. Following such results, studies have looked at the effect of rehabilitation and robotic assistance on muscle synergies of stroke-affected patients, either by extracting synergies during therapy or comparing pre- and post-therapy results.
There are still many open questions to solve before applying the method of muscle synergies to a clinical practice. The variables influencing the obtention of muscle synergies are still debated over in the literature: how synergies differ between patients and healthy controls, if there is a constant number of modules that should be used to represent the muscle signals, and the modalities to extract the synergies (number of EMG channels, muscles to consider, algorithms for dimensionality reduction and methods to process EMG data). These are important parameters to decide, which could be better resolved by assessing the reproducibility of muscle synergies of healthy controls between different sessions.
Another question relevant to clinical practice, is to understand how muscle synergies are affected by robotic devices typically used for therapy. Robot-assisted rehabilitation is characterized by two types: end-effector-type and exoskeleton-type rehabilitation robots. Both types showed to have promising results on rehabilitation, but few studies directly compared their effects on patients. A randomized trial analyzed the effects on motor recovery of end-effector robot and exoskeleton, finding greater improvements in the end-effector robotic rehabilitation. No study has yet identified synergy patterns from robotic use to characterize the human-robot interaction in post-stroke patients when using an end-effector robot or an exoskeleton robot. This comparison will be needed in the clinic to assess synergies during robotic rehabilitation as an assessment of patient's progress.
In clinical scenario, clinical scales and kinematic analysis are usually used for the evaluation of patients. However, these methods are limited, since they may suffer from the lack of objectivity and sensitivity. Synergies go beyond pure kinematics and allow to directly understand the neural mechanisms underlying the motor impairment. Synergy analysis has been exploited for understanding physiological mechanisms in healthy subjects, but only few studies analyzed muscle synergies on patients during rehabilitation. In order to translate this methodology to the clinical practice, there is the need of comprehensive and structured studies. However, only few pilot studies are available that analyzed synergies during rehabilitation. Thus, in this study we aimed at filling this gap by analyzing synergies during human-robot interaction when using an end-effector robot and an exoskeleton robot and by assessing the modifications of synergies after robotic rehabilitation in detail. This study is part of the PNRR30 project "Fit4MedRob-Fit for Medical Robotics" (Piano Nazionale Complementare (PNC)-PNC0000007), that aims at improving the current rehabilitation for patients with reduced or absent motor, by means of novel technologies and tools in all the phases of the rehabilitation process. The project includes novel algorithms and diagnostic tools that allow to improve the current rehabilitation protocols. Therefore, the present study will contribute to investigate the effects of robotic rehabilitation therapy on patients suffering from post-stroke motor impairment with the synergy methods. For this purpose, synergies will be analyzed with the SynMMF tool based on the novel mixed-matrix factorization (MMF) and on the SynergyAnalyzer Toolbox that extracts muscle synergies, kinematic-muscular synergies, functional synergies, and synergies with negative weights from EMG and multi-domain data. First, a single-session study will be conducted to evaluate the human-robot interaction, comparing the interaction of post-stroke patients with an upper limb exoskeleton and an upper limb end-effector robot. Then, a longitudinal study will be conducted in which patients are evaluated before and after rehabilitation by investigating the changes in synergies in a wide variety of movements.
This study may deepen the understanding of the mechanisms of motor control while interacting with robotic devices and help to understand better the neural mechanism underlying motor impairment and to improve the motor recovery. We develop in the next section a specific set of hypotheses and objectives that the study will answer.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Healthy subject | No intervention | –to establish the baseline data related to human-robot interaction, a single session study with both groups of participants will be performed |
| Exoskeleton Group | Experimental | Device: Upper Limb robotic trainingupper limb training with exoskeleton |
| End-Effector Group | Experimental | Device: Upper Limb robotic trainingupper limb training with end-effector |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (11 listed)
- Adult subjects (aged ≥18 years old)
- Non orthopaedic condition at upper limb
- No neurological or motor impairment Exclusion criteria for healthy subjects
- Physical conditions that can alter normal biomechanics
- Pregnant or nursing women
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Subjects with a high level of spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale: In general >3 except for motorized joints which may be >2)
- Pain in the affected upper limb (Numeric Rating Scale > 6)
- Severe psychiatric disorder
- Permanent neurologic symptoms present immediately before stroke
- Physical conditions that can alter normal biomechanics (e.g., recent sprains or injuries, etc.)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Upper Limb robotic training30 minutes daily sessions using study upper limb robot, 3 days a week for 4 consecutive weeks, for a total of 12 sessions. | Device | End-Effector Group, Exoskeleton Group |
Primary outcome
Outcome Measure
Time frame: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Fugl-Meyr Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) tot A-D (0-66 higher values better performance)
5 secondary outcomes
Spasticity outcome
Time frame: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Motor Outcome
Time frame: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Motor Outcome
Time frame: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Pain outcome
Time frame: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Motor Outcome
Time frame: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Aug 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Temporal Interference Stimulation for Upper-Limb Motor Recovery in Early Subacute Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
ELATE Study: Evaluating Large-vessel Acute Thrombectomy in Extended Time Window
Acute Ichemic Stroke
Recruiting
Web-Based Tele-Rehabilitation Using Action Observation and Mirror Therapy for Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Stroke, Upper Extremity Paresis
Recruiting
Early Motor-Cognitive Integrative Training on Cognitive and Motor Performance in Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Subarachnoid Aneurysm Hemorrhage
Not yet recruiting
Selective Intra-Arterial Hypothermia After Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Basilar Artery Occlusion
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Franco Molteni, MD principal investigator
Villa Beretta Rehabilitation Center- Valduce Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Upper Limb robotic training in people with Stroke, run by Villa Beretta Rehabilitation Center at 1 site in Italy.
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 11 inclusion and 9 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 17 Aug 2026. 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 Italy. 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?
Outcome Measure (time frame: baseline and after 12 sessions of upper limb robotic training (4 weeks)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 17 Aug 2026.