ArticlePeerJ2019
Effect of assisted walking-movement in patients with genetic and acquired neuromuscular disorders with the motorised Innowalk device: an international case study meta-analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches in cerebral palsy diagnosis, prognosis, and management: a comprehensive review.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Review
- Evaluation of the effects of robot-assisted gait training on bowel function in children with cerebral palsy and the caregiver burden: A pilot study.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Recovery of Spinal Walking in Paraplegic Dogs Using Physiotherapy and Supportive Devices to Maintain the Standing Position.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Dynamic Standing Exercise using the Innowalk Device in Patients with Genetic and Acquired Motor Impairments.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2022Article
- Robotic devices for paediatric rehabilitation: a review of design features.Biomedical engineering online · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People with physical disabilities (PD) suffer from consequences due to lack of physical activity and consequently, are at increased risk of chronic diseases. We aimed to evaluate the ability of a motorised assistive device for dynamic standing with weight-bearing in addition to standard state-of-the-art therapy to improve clinical outcome in a meta-analysis of available studies. A total of 11 studies were identified from different European countries analysing the effect of the dynamic device Innowalk. Raw data of nine studies were pooled including a total of 31 patients observed between 2009 and 2017. Standardised questionnaires and physical outcomes were examined in this exploratory meta-analysis. We recorded patients' characteristics, duration, intensity, and location of usage as well as general clinical outcomes and improvement of passive range of motion (PROM). The analysed population consisted in 90% cases of patients younger than 18 years of age. Patients were severely disabled individuals (aged 8 (6-10) years; 58% male; 67% non-ambulatory, 86% cerebral palsy). A total of 94% used the Innowalk in a home-based or day-care setting. For nearly all individuals (94%), improvements were recorded for: walking or weight-bearing transfer (
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.