Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27901413›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neurotrauma2017

Dose-Response Outcomes Associated with Different Forms of Locomotor Training in Persons with Chronic Motor-Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury.

Evan B Sandler, Kathryn E Roach, Edelle C Field-Fote

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neurotrauma, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04052009 (Effects of End-effector Based Training vs. Conventional Gait Training With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury. A Pilot Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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.

NCT04052009 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Effects of End-effector Based Training vs. Conventional Gait Training With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury. A Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorRehab BaselRan2019 to 2020Enrolled36ConditionsIncomplete Spinal Cord InjuryArmsConventional gait training, End-effector based gait training, combined training (conventional and end-effector-based)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Clinical Trials in Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2018
    Review
  8. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Evan B Sandler1 Crawford Research Institute , Shepherd Center, Atlanta, Georgia .
Kathryn E Roach2 Department of Physical Therapy, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami , Miami, Florida.
Edelle C Field-Fote1 Crawford Research Institute , Shepherd Center, Atlanta, Georgia .
University of Miami · USShepherd Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Outcomes of training are thought to be related to the amount of training (training dose). Although various approaches to locomotor training have been used to improve walking function in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI), little is known about the relationship between dose of locomotor training and walking outcomes. This secondary analysis aimed to identify the relationship between training dose and improvement in walking distance and speed associated with locomotor training in participants with chronic motor-incomplete spinal cord injury (MISCI). We compared the dose-response relationships associated with each of four different locomotor training approaches. Participants were randomized to either: treadmill-based training with manual assistance (TM = 17), treadmill-based training with stimulation (TS = 18), overground training with stimulation (OG = 15), and treadmill-based training with locomotor robotic device assistance (LR = 14). Subjects trained 5 days/week for 12 weeks, with a target of 60 training sessions. The distance-dose and time-dose were calculated based on the total distance and total time, respectively, participants engaged in walking over all sessions combined. Primary outcome measures included walking distance (traversed in 2 min) and walking speed (over 10 m). Only OG training showed a good correlation between distance-dose and change in walking distance and speed walked over ground (r = 0.61, p = 0.02; r = 0.62, p = 0.01). None of the treadmill-based training approaches were associated with significant correlations between training dose and improvement of functional walking outcome. The findings suggest that greater distance achieved over the course of OG training is associated with better walking outcomes in the studied population. Further investigation to identify the essential elements that determine outcomes would be valuable for guiding rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesExercise TestHumansLocomotionRecovery of FunctionSingle-Blind MethodSpinal Cord InjuriesTreatment OutcomeWalkingdistanceOG trainingrehabilitationwalking speed

Identifiers

PMID27901413
PMCPMC5444430
OpenAlexW2557791007

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.