Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31337400›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2019

Influences of the biofeedback content on robotic post-stroke gait rehabilitation: electromyographic vs joint torque biofeedback.

Federica Tamburella, Juan C Moreno, Diana Sofía Herrera Valenzuela, Iolanda Pisotta, Marco Iosa, Febo Cincotti, Donatella Mattia, José L Pons, Marco Molinari

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06531304 (Patient-therapist INTERaction During RObotic GAIT Rehabilitation After Spinal Cord Injury), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT06531304 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Patient-therapist INTERaction During RObotic GAIT Rehabilitation After Spinal Cord Injury: Clinical, Instrumental and Hyperscanning Study.

TypeinterventionalSponsorI.R.C.C.S. Fondazione Santa LuciaRan2024 to 2025Enrolled55ConditionsSpinal Cord InjuriesArmsLokomat Robot Assisted Gait Training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Federica TamburellaSpinal Rehabilitation Laboratory - Neurological and Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Department A, Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Via Ardeatina 306 -, 00179, Rome, Italy. f.tamburella@hsantalucia.it.ORCID 0000-0001-9920-1010
Juan C MorenoSpanish National Research Council, Cajal Institute, Neural Rehabilitation Group, Av. Doctor Arce, 37, 28002, Madrid, Spain.
Diana Sofía Herrera ValenzuelaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Iolanda PisottaLaboratory of Robotics Applied to Neurological Rehabilitation- NeuroRobot - Neurological and Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Department A, Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Via Ardeatina 306 -, 00179, Rome, Italy.
Marco IosaLaboratory for the Study of Mind and Action in Rehabilitation Technologies - Smart Lab, Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Via Ardeatina 306, 00179, Rome, Italy.
Febo CincottiDepartment of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Donatella MattiaNeuroelectrical Imaging and BCI Lab, IRCCS S. Lucia Foundation, Via Ardeatina 306 -, 00179, Rome, Italy.
José L PonsSpanish National Research Council, Cajal Institute, Neural Rehabilitation Group, Av. Doctor Arce, 37, 28002, Madrid, Spain.
Marco MolinariSpinal Rehabilitation Laboratory - Neurological and Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Department A, Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Via Ardeatina 306 -, 00179, Rome, Italy.
Fondazione Santa Lucia · ITInstituto Cajal · ESNorthwestern University · USUniversidad de Los Andes · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdd-on robot-mediated therapy has proven to be more effective than conventional therapy alone in post-stroke gait rehabilitation. Such robot-mediated interventions routinely use also visual biofeedback tools. A better understanding of biofeedback content effects when used for robotic locomotor training may improve the rehabilitation process and outcomes.

methodsThis randomized cross-over pilot trial aimed to address the possible impact of different biofeedback contents on patients' performance and experience during Lokomat training, by comparing a novel biofeedback based on online biological electromyographic information (EMGb) versus the commercial joint torque biofeedback (Rb) in sub-acute non ambulatory patients. 12 patients were randomized into two treatment groups, A and B, based on two different biofeedback training. For both groups, study protocol consisted of 12 Lokomat sessions, 6 for each biofeedback condition, 40 min each, 3 sessions per week of frequency. All patients performed Lokomat trainings as an add-on therapy to the conventional one that was the same for both groups and consisted of 40 min per day, 5 days per week. The primary outcome was the Modified Ashworth Spasticity Scale, and secondary outcomes included clinical, neurological, mechanical, and personal experience variables collected before and after each biofeedback training.

resultsLokomat training significantly improved gait/daily living activity independence and trunk control, nevertheless, different effects due to biofeedback content were remarked. EMGb was more effective to reduce spasticity and improve muscle force at the ankle, knee and hip joints. Robot data suggest that Rb induces more adaptation to robotic movements than EMGb. Furthermore, Rb was perceived less demanding than EMGb, even though patient motivation was higher for EMGb. Robot was perceived to be effective, easy to use, reliable and safe: acceptability was rated as very high by all patients.

conclusionsSpecific effects can be related to biofeedback content: when muscular-based information is used, a more direct effect on lower limb spasticity and muscle activity is evidenced. In a similar manner, when biofeedback treatment is based on joint torque data, a higher patient compliance effect in terms of force exerted is achieved. Subjects who underwent EMGb seemed to be more motivated than those treated with Rb.

Indexed as

AgedBiofeedback, PsychologyBiomechanical PhenomenaCross-Over StudiesElectromyographyFemaleGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansMaleMiddle AgedRoboticsSelf-Help DevicesStrokeStroke RehabilitationTorqueBiofeedbackBiomechanicsElectromyographyRehabilitationRobotStrokeTop-down approach

Identifiers

PMID31337400
PMCPMC6652021
OpenAlexW2962687869

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.