Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24661681›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2014

Prediction of gait recovery in spinal cord injured individuals trained with robotic gait orthosis.

Xun Niu, Deborah Varoqui, Matthew Kindig, Mehdi M Mirbagheri

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled 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 18 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Robot-aided assessment of lower extremity functions: a review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2016
    Review
  18. Effects of robotic-locomotor training on stretch reflex function and muscular properties in individuals with spinal cord injury.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2015
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xun NiuDeptartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. nxgre78@gmail.com.
Deborah Varoqui
Matthew Kindig
Mehdi M Mirbagheri
Northwestern University · USShirley Ryan AbilityLab · US

Funding

Mechanisms of Therapeutic Action in SCIR01HD059895 · NICHD · REHABILITATION INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO D/B/A SHIRLEY RYAN ABILITYLAB · PI MIRBAGHERI, MEHDI M · 2009 to 2013
$1.5M
NICHD NIH HHS R01HD059895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMotor impairment is a major consequence of spinal cord injury (SCI). Earlier studies have shown that robotic gait orthosis (e.g., Lokomat) can improve an SCI individual's walking capacity. However, little is known about the differential responses among different individuals with SCI. The present longitudinal study sought to characterize the distinct recovery patterns of gait impairment for SCI subjects receiving Lokomat training, and to identify significant predictors for these patterns.

methodsForty SCI subjects with spastic hypertonia at their ankles were randomly allocated to either control or intervention groups. Subjects in the intervention group participated in twelve 1-hour Lokomat trainings over one month, while control subjects received no interventions. Walking capacity was evaluated in terms of walking speed, functional mobility, and endurance four times, i.e. baseline, 1, 2, and 4 weeks after training, using the 10-Meter-Walking, Timed-Up-and-Go, and 6-Minute-Walking tests. Growth Mixture Modeling, an analytical framework for stratifying subjects based on longitudinal changes, was used to classify subjects, based on their gait impairment recovery patterns, and to identify the effects of Lokomat training on these improvements.

resultsTwo recovery classes (low and high walking capacity) were identified for each clinical evaluation from both the control and intervention groups. Subjects with initial high walking capacity (i.e. shorter Timed-Up-and-Go time, higher 10-Meter-Walking speed and longer 6-Minute-Walking distance) displayed significant improvements in speed and functional mobility (0.033 m/s/week and-0.41 s/week respectively); however no significant change in endurance was observed. Subjects with low walking capacity exhibited no significant improvement. The membership in these two classes-and thus prediction of the subject's gait improvement trajectory over time-could be determined by the subject's maximum voluntary torque at the ankle under both plantar-and dorsi-flexion contractions determined prior to any training.

conclusionOur findings demonstrate that subjects responded to Lokomat training non-uniformly, and should potentially be grouped based on their likely recovery patterns using objective criteria. Further, we found that the subject's ankle torque can predict whether he/she would benefit most from Lokomat training prior to the therapy. These findings are clinically significant as they can help individualize therapeutic programs that maximize patient recovery while minimizing unnecessary efforts and costs.

Indexed as

GaitOrthotic DevicesRecovery of FunctionAdultFemaleGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansMaleMiddle AgedMuscle StrengthPhysical Therapy ModalitiesRoboticsSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID24661681
PMCPMC3987889
OpenAlexW2100370776

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.