Correction: Clinical efficacy of upper limb robotic therapy in people with tetraplegia: a pilot randomized controlled...

In the original version of the article the authors incorrectly stated that: "One case study provided evidence of some improvements in motor performance and spasticity [19], while several other studies only provided evidence on the feasibility of UER as an assessment tool; however, the fact that the manufacturer funded these studies lessens their objectivity [15, 20-24]." This is not correct as the manufacturers did not fund the studies. The correct phrase therefore should have read: "One case study provided evidence of some improvements in motor performance and spasticity [19], while several other studies provided evidence focusing more on the feasibility of UER rather than the clinical efficacy [15, 20-24]." The authors would like to apologise for this error.This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.