ReviewJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
The effect of 'device-in-charge' versus 'patient-in-charge' support during robotic gait training on walking ability and balance in chronic stroke survivors: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Wearable Device Gait Training on Parkinson's Disease: A Randomized Controlled Open-label Pilot Study.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Trial
- Mapping the Role of Robot-Assisted Gait Training in Post-Stroke Recovery Among Elderly Patients: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Robotic versus Conventional Overground Gait Training in Subacute Stroke Survivors: A Multicenter Controlled Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Effect of exoskeleton-assisted Body Weight-Supported Treadmill Training on gait function for patients with chronic stroke: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review describes the effects of two control strategies - used in robotic gait-training devices for chronic stroke survivors - on gait speed, endurance and balance. Control strategies are classified as 'patient-in-charge support', where the device 'empowers' the patient, and 'device-in-charge support', where the device imposes a pre-defined movement trajectory on the patient. Studies were collected up to 24 June 2015 and were included if they presented robotic gait training in chronic stroke survivors and used outcome measures that were indexed by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. In total, 11 articles were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Outcome measures were walking speed, endurance and balance. Pooled mean differences between pre and post measurements were calculated. No differences were found between studies that used device-in-charge support and patient-in-charge support. Training effects were small for both groups of control strategies, and none were considered to be clinically relevant as defined by the Minimal Clinically Important Difference. However, an important confounder is the short training duration among all included studies. As control strategies in robotic gait training are rapidly evolving, future research should take the recommendations that are made in this review into account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.