Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24594284›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2014

The effect of impedance-controlled robotic gait training on walking ability and quality in individuals with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury: an explorative study.

Bertine M Fleerkotte, Bram Koopman, Jaap H Buurke, Edwin H F van Asseldonk, Herman van der Kooij, Johan S Rietman

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
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. Cited by 34 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Bertine M FleerkotteRoessingh Research and Development, Enschede, The Netherlands. b.fleerkotte@rrd.nl.
Bram Koopman
Jaap H Buurke
Edwin H F van Asseldonk
Herman van der Kooij
Johan S Rietman
Mahendra Institute of Management and Technical Studies · INRoessingh Research and Development · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing interest in the use of robotic gait-training devices in walking rehabilitation of incomplete spinal cord injured (iSCI) individuals. These devices provide promising opportunities to increase the intensity of training and reduce physical demands on therapists. Despite these potential benefits, robotic gait-training devices have not yet demonstrated clear advantages over conventional gait-training approaches, in terms of functional outcomes. This might be due to the reduced active participation and step-to-step variability in most robotic gait-training strategies, when compared to manually assisted therapy. Impedance-controlled devices can increase active participation and step-to-step variability. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of impedance-controlled robotic gait training on walking ability and quality in chronic iSCI individuals.

methodsA group of 10 individuals with chronic iSCI participated in an explorative clinical trial. Participants trained three times a week for eight weeks using an impedance-controlled robotic gait trainer (LOPES: LOwer extremity Powered ExoSkeleton). Primary outcomes were the 10-meter walking test (10 MWT), the Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI II), the six-meter walking test (6 MWT), the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and the Lower Extremity Motor Scores (LEMS). Secondary outcomes were spatiotemporal and kinematics measures. All participants were tested before, during, and after training and at 8 weeks follow-up.

resultsParticipants experienced significant improvements in walking speed (0.06 m/s, p = 0.008), distance (29 m, p = 0.005), TUG (3.4 s, p = 0.012), LEMS (3.4, p = 0.017) and WISCI after eight weeks of training with LOPES. At the eight-week follow-up, participants retained the improvements measured at the end of the training period. Significant improvements were also found in spatiotemporal measures and hip range of motion.

conclusionRobotic gait training using an impedance-controlled robot is feasible in gait rehabilitation of chronic iSCI individuals. It leads to improvements in walking ability, muscle strength, and quality of walking. Improvements observed at the end of the training period persisted at the eight-week follow-up. Slower walkers benefit the most from the training protocol and achieve the greatest relative improvement in speed and walking distance.

Indexed as

GaitWalkingAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaChronic DiseaseElectric ImpedanceExercise TherapyFemaleGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle StrengthRecovery of FunctionRoboticsSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID24594284
PMCPMC3975927
OpenAlexW2145530000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.