Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24401143›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2014

Strength training versus robot-assisted gait training after incomplete spinal cord injury: a randomized pilot study in patients depending on walking assistance.

Rob Labruyère, Hubertus J A van Hedel

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01087918 (Effects of Automated Treadmill Training and Lower Extremity Strength Training on Walking-related and Other Outcomes in Subjects With Chronic Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 61 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 17 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.

NCT01087918 phase1 / phase2completednot on this map

Effects of Automated Treadmill Training and Lower Extremity Strength Training on Walking-related and Other Outcomes in Subjects With Chronic Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ZurichRan2009 to 2011Enrolled9ConditionsSpinal Cord InjuryArmsRAGT, Strength Training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rob LabruyèreSpinal Cord Injury Center, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. rob.labruyere@kispi.uzh.ch.
Hubertus J A van Hedel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTask-specific locomotor training has been promoted to improve walking-related outcome after incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). However, there is also evidence that lower extremity strength training might lead to such improvements. The aim of this randomized cross-over pilot study was to compare changes in a broad spectrum of walking-related outcome measures and pain between robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) and strength training in patients with chronic iSCI, who depended on walking assistance. We hypothesized that task-specific locomotor training would result in better improvements compared to strength training.

methodsNine participants with a chronic iSCI were randomized to group 1 or 2. Group 1 received 16 sessions of RAGT (45 min each) within 4 weeks followed by 16 sessions of strength training (45 min each) within 4 weeks. Group 2 received the same interventions in reversed order. Main outcome measures were the 10 m Walk Test (10MWT) at preferred and maximal speed. Furthermore, we assessed several measures such as walking speed under different conditions, balance, strength, and 2 questionnaires that evaluate risk of falling and pain. Data were collected at baseline, between interventions after 4 weeks, directly after the interventions and at follow-up 6 months after the interventions. Pain was assessed repeatedly throughout the study.

resultsThere were no significant differences in changes in scores between the 2 interventions, except for maximal walking speed (10MWT), which improved significantly more after strength training than after RAGT. Pain reduced after both interventions.

conclusionIn patients with chronic iSCI dependent on walking assistance, RAGT was not more effective in improving walking-related outcome compared to lower extremity strength training. However, the low sample size limits generalizability and precision of data interpretation.

trial registrationThis study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01087918).

Indexed as

GaitWalkingAdultAgedCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPainParaplegiaPhysical Therapy ModalitiesPilot ProjectsResistance TrainingRoboticsSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID24401143
PMCPMC3905290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.