Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27278136›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2016

Powered robotic exoskeletons in post-stroke rehabilitation of gait: a scoping review.

Dennis R Louie, Janice J Eng

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisScoping Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07767955 (Healthcare Professionals' Satisfaction With Various Exoskeleton Models), which is not on this map. Cited by 126 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
24.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT07767955 completednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Healthcare Professionals' Satisfaction With Various Exoskeleton Models

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of Sao Paulo General HospitalRan2024 to 2025Enrolled14ConditionsParaplegia and TetraplegiaArmsExoskeleton
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

126 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 328 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

66 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dennis R LouieGraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Janice J EngDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, 212-2177 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada. janice.eng@ubc.ca.
University of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Powered robotic exoskeletons are a potential intervention for gait rehabilitation in stroke to enable repetitive walking practice to maximize neural recovery. As this is a relatively new technology for stroke, a scoping review can help guide current research and propose recommendations for advancing the research development. The aim of this scoping review was to map the current literature surrounding the use of robotic exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation in adults post-stroke. Five databases (Pubmed, OVID MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials) were searched for articles from inception to October 2015. Reference lists of included articles were reviewed to identify additional studies. Articles were included if they utilized a robotic exoskeleton as a gait training intervention for adult stroke survivors and reported walking outcome measures. Of 441 records identified, 11 studies, all published within the last five years, involving 216 participants met the inclusion criteria. The study designs ranged from pre-post clinical studies (n = 7) to controlled trials (n = 4); five of the studies utilized a robotic exoskeleton device unilaterally, while six used a bilateral design. Participants ranged from sub-acute (<7 weeks) to chronic (>6 months) stroke. Training periods ranged from single-session to 8-week interventions. Main walking outcome measures were gait speed, Timed Up and Go, 6-min Walk Test, and the Functional Ambulation Category. Meaningful improvement with exoskeleton-based gait training was more apparent in sub-acute stroke compared to chronic stroke. Two of the four controlled trials showed no greater improvement in any walking outcomes compared to a control group in chronic stroke. In conclusion, clinical trials demonstrate that powered robotic exoskeletons can be used safely as a gait training intervention for stroke. Preliminary findings suggest that exoskeletal gait training is equivalent to traditional therapy for chronic stroke patients, while sub-acute patients may experience added benefit from exoskeletal gait training. Efforts should be invested in designing rigorous, appropriately powered controlled trials before powered exoskeletons can be translated into a clinical tool for gait rehabilitation post-stroke.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton DeviceGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansRoboticsStrokeStroke RehabilitationCerebrovascular accidentGait rehabilitationRobotic exoskeletonScoping reviewStroke

Identifiers

PMID27278136
PMCPMC4898381
OpenAlexW2413248676

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.