Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12917932›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2003

Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke.

A M Moseley, A Stark, I D Cameron, A Pollock

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03463746 (Effects of Electromechanical-assisted Gait Training Within an Integrated, Practice-oriented Therapy Approach in Subacute Stroke Patients - a Randomised Controlled), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03463746 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Electromechanical-assisted Gait Training Within an Integrated, Practice-oriented Therapy Approach in Subacute Stroke Patients - a Randomised Controlled (RCT) Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorZürcher RehaZentrum WaldRan2018 to 2020Enrolled72ConditionsStrokeArmsLYRA® gait trainer, Standard individual physical therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Training and exercise to drive poststroke recovery.Nature clinical practice. Neurology · 2008
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

A M MoseleyRehabilitation Studies Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Sydney, PO Box 6, Ryde, NSW, Australia.
A Stark
I D Cameron
A Pollock

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreadmill training, with some body weight supported using a harness, is a method of treating walking after stroke. Systematic review is required to assess the cost, effectiveness and acceptance of this treatment.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of treadmill training and/or body weight support in the treatment of walking after stroke. The primary outcomes investigated were walking speed and walking dependency. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 21 March 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2003), MEDLINE (1966-March 2003), EMBASE (1980-March 2003), CINAHL (1982-February 2003) and PEDro (last searched 21 March 2003). In addition, we handsearched relevant conference proceedings, screened reference lists and contacted trialists to identify further published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, or quasi-randomised, controlled and cross-over trials of treadmill training and/or body weight support for the treatment of walking after stroke were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data. Trialists were contacted for additional information. A fixed effects model was used for analysis, but if heterogeneity existed (Chi squared statistic) a random effects model was used. Results were analysed as weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous variables and relative risk (RR) for dichotomous variables. The main outcome variables were walking speed and dependency. MAIN

resultsEleven trials (458 participants) were included. There were no statistically significant differences between treadmill training, with or without body weight support, and other interventions for walking speed or dependence. There was a small trend toward the effectiveness of treadmill training with body weight support for participants who could walk independently (WMD: 0.24 m/sec, 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.66 for speed; random effects). The one trial which compared treadmill training with and without body weight support showed benefit at the end of follow-up (mean difference: 0.22 m/sec, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.39). Adverse events occurred slightly more frequently in participants receiving treadmill training, although statistically there were no differences. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsOverall, no statistically significant effect of treadmill training and body weight support was detected. However, among people who could walk independently, treadmill training with body weight support appeared to be more effective than other interventions at improving walking speed, but this conclusion was not robust.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationBody WeightExercise TherapyHumansOrthotic DevicesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWalkingWeight-Bearing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.