Document Type : Review Article


1 Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Rehabilitation Sciences Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran


Background: Over the past decades, wearable robotic gloves due to their positive features are used by clinicians to improve motor function in the upper extremity. This systematic review aims to evaluate the studies that investigated the therapeutic effects of wearable robotic gloves to improve hand function in stroke patients.
Methods: The most related databases including MEDLINE (PubMed), ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, IEEE, and Google Scholar were systematically searched and studies were collected up to September 2021. The methodological quality assessment was done using an adapted version of the Downs and Black checklist.
Results: Of the 2674 articles searched, 5 studies were recognized as being relevant in this systematic review. The methodological quality of all included studies was between 7 to 10 points of adapted 12-point score of Downs and Black checklist. All studies concluded that the introduced robotic device had a good therapeutic effect on investigated patients' hand function. The studies had limitations in terms of the level of evidence, sample size, stroke patient groups, and therapeutic process.
Conclusion: There is no standard approach with definite intervention timing to evaluate the effect of such devices. Therefore, more comprehensive studies are needed to confirm the therapeutic effects of wearable robotic gloves on improving hand function after a stroke.


  1. Takahashi CD, Der-Yeghiaian L, Le V, Motiwala RR, Cramer SC. Robot-based hand motor therapy after stroke. Brain 2008; 131(Pt 2): 425-37.
  2. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ahmed S, Gordon C, Higgins J, McEwen S, et al. Disablement following stroke. Disabil Rehabil 1999; 21(5-6): 258-68.
  3. Lawrence ES, Coshall C, Dundas R, Stewart J, Rudd AG, Howard R, et al. Estimates of the prevalence of acute stroke impairments and disability in a multiethnic population. Stroke 2001; 32(6): 1279-84.
  4. Houwink A, Nijland RH, Geurts AC, Kwakkel G. Functional recovery of the paretic upper limb after stroke: Who regains hand capacity? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013; 94(5): 839-44.
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Outpatient rehabilitation among stroke survivors--21 States and the District of Columbia, 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007; 56(20): 504-7.
  6. Coupar F, Pollock A, Rowe P, Weir C, Langhorne P. Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2012; 26(4): 291-313.
  7. Fisher BE, Sullivan KJ. Activity-dependent factors affecting poststroke functional outcomes. Top Stroke Rehabil 2001; 8(3): 31-44.
  8. Kwakkel G. Impact of intensity of practice after stroke: Issues for consideration. Disabil Rehabil 2006; 28(13-14): 823-30.
  9. Buschfort R, Brocke J, Hess A, Werner C, Waldner A, Hesse S. Arm studio to intensify the upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: Concept, acceptance, utilization and preliminary clinical results. J Rehabil Med 2010; 42(4): 310-4.
  10. Veerbeek JM, Langbroek-Amersfoort AC, van Wegen EE, Meskers CG, Kwakkel G. Effects of robot-assisted therapy for the upper limb after stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017; 31(2): 107-21.
  11. Prange GB, Jannink MJ, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Hermens HJ, Ijzerman MJ. Systematic review of the effect of robot-aided therapy on recovery of the hemiparetic arm after stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 2006; 43(2): 171-84.
  12. Masiero S, Poli P, Rosati G, Zanotto D, Iosa M, Paolucci S, et al. The value of robotic systems in stroke rehabilitation. Expert Rev Med Devices 2014; 11(2): 187-98.
  13. Delph MA, Fischer SA, Gauthier PW, Luna CH, Clancy EA, Fischer GS. A soft robotic exomusculature glove with integrated sEMG sensing for hand rehabilitation. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot 2013; 2013: 6650426.
  14. Ng S, Chu M, Wu A, Cheung P. Effectiveness of home-based occupational therapy for early discharged patients with stroke. Hong Kong J Occup Ther 2005; 15(1): 27-36.
  15. Pons JL. Rehabilitation exoskeletal robotics. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2010; 29(3): 57-63.
  16. Wege A, Zimmermann A. Electromyography sensor based control for a hand exoskeleton. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO); 2007 Dec 15-18; Sanya, China.
  17. Motus Nova. The Motus Hand [Online]. [cited 2021]; Available from: URL:
  18. WaveFlex Hand CPM Device. [Online]. [cited 2021]; Available from: URL: URL:
  19. Chen T, Lum PS. Hand rehabilitation after stroke using a wearable, high DOF, spring powered exoskeleton. Proceedings of the 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC); 2016 Aug 16-20; Orlando, FL, USA.
  20. Leonardis D, Barsotti M, Loconsole C, Solazzi M, Troncossi M, Mazzotti C, et al. An EMG-controlled robotic hand exoskeleton for bilateral rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Haptics 2015; 8(2): 140-51.
  21. Prange-Lasonder GB, Radder B, Kottink AIR, Melendez-Calderon A, Buurke JH, Rietman JS. Applying a soft-robotic glove as assistive device and training tool with games to support hand function after stroke: Preliminary results on feasibility and potential clinical impact. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot 2017; 2017: 1401-6.
  22. DiCicco M, Lucas L, Matsuoka Y. Comparison of control strategies for an EMG controlled orthotic exoskeleton for the hand. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; 2004 Apr 26-May 1; New Orleans, LA, USA.
  23. Vanoglio F, Luisa A, Garofali F, Mora C. Evaluation of the effectiveness of Gloreha (Hand Rehabilitation Glove) on hemiplegic patients. Pilot study. Proceedings of the 8th congress of Italian Society of Neurorehabilitation; 2013 Apr 18-20; Bari, Italy.
  24. Fardipour S, Bahramizadeh M, Arazpour M, Jafarpishieh AS, Azimian M. First prototype of EMG-controlled power hand orthosis for restoring hand extension in stroke patients. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2018; 954411918808322. [Epub ahead of print].
  25. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998; 52(6): 377-84.
  26. Connelly L, Stoykov ME, Jia Y, Toro ML, Kenyon RV, Kamper DG. Use of a pneumatic glove for hand rehabilitation following stroke. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009; 2009: 2434-7.
  27. Fischer HC, Triandafilou KM, Thielbar KO, Ochoa JM, Lazzaro ED, Pacholski KA, et al. Use of a portable assistive glove to facilitate rehabilitation in stroke survivors with severe hand impairment. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2016; 24(3): 344-51.
  28. van Ommeren AL, Radder B, Buurke JH, Kottink IR, Holmberg J, Sletta K, et al. The effect of prolonged use of a wearable soft-robotic glove post stroke - a proof-of-principle. Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (Biorob); 2018 Aug 26-29; Enschede, The Netherlands.
  29. Polygerinos P, Wang Z, Galloway KC, Wood RJ, Walsh CJ. Soft robotic glove for combined assistance and at-home rehabilitation. Rob Auton Syst 2015; 73: 135-43.
  30. Ullah MM, Hafeez U, Shehzad MN, Awais MN, Elahi H. A soft robotic glove for assistance and rehabilitation of stroke affected patients. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT); 2019 Dec 16-18; Islamabad, Pakistan.
  31. Yurkewich A, Hebert D, Wang RH, Mihailidis A. Hand extension robot orthosis (HERO) glove: Development and testing with stroke survivors with severe hand impairment. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2019; 27(5): 916-26.
  32. Biggar S, Yao W. Design and evaluation of a soft and wearable robotic glove for hand rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2016; 24(10): 1071-80.
  33. Yap HK, Lim JH, Nasrallah F, Yeow CH. Design and preliminary feasibility study of a soft robotic glove for hand function assistance in stroke survivors. Front Neurosci 2017; 11: 547.
  34. Milia P, Peccini MC, De Salvo F, Sfaldaroli A, Grelli C, Lucchesi G, et al. Rehabilitation with robotic glove (Gloreha) in poststroke patients. Digit Med 2019; 5(2): 62-7.
  35. Kamper DG, Rymer WZ. Impairment of voluntary control of finger motion following stroke: role of inappropriate muscle coactivation. Muscle Nerve 2001; 24(5): 673-81.
  36. Dietz V, Sinkjaer T. Spastic movement disorder: Impaired reflex function and altered muscle mechanics. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6(8): 725-33.
  37. Marciniak C. Poststroke hypertonicity: Upper limb assessment and treatment. Top Stroke Rehabil 2011; 18(3): 179-94.
  38. Sadarangani GP, Jiang X, Simpson LA, Eng JJ, Menon C. Force myography for monitoring grasping in individuals with stroke with mild to moderate upper-extremity impairments: A preliminary investigation in a controlled environment. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2017; 5: 42.
  39. Masahiro T, Daisuke S. Development of power assist wear using pneumatic rubber artificial muscles. J Robot Mechatron 2009; 21(5): 607-13.
  40. Park S, Bishop L, Post T, Xiao Y, Stein J, Ciocarlie M. On the feasibility of wearable exotendon networks for whole-hand movement patterns in stroke patients. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA); 2016 May 16-21; Stockholm, Sweden.
  41. Duncan MJ, Van Wijck F, Pollock A, Ali M. International consensus recommendations for outcome measurement in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2021; 57(1): 61-8.