SynthesisBMJ open2019
Obstacle avoidance training for individuals with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of different intensity training with a lower limb exoskeleton robot on walking function in people with subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Reliability of Obstacle-Crossing Parameters during Overground Walking in Young Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Haptic feedback intervention decreases the spatial margin when older adults walk through a narrow space.Journal of physiological anthropology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo accumulate evidence that obstacle avoidance training alone is effective in improving the locomotor ability of individuals with stroke.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis.
settingMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ICTRP and PEDro were searched for related information until December 2018. Two independent reviewers extracted data. Outcome measurement data were subjected to meta-analyses using random-effects models. Data syntheses were conducted using RevMan V.5.3, and the certainty of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
participantsParticipants with various types and phases of stroke were included.
interventionThe usual gait training including obstacle avoidance training (interventions of any type, intensity, duration and frequency). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were gait speed, composite gait ability and objective balance ability. Secondary outcomes were subjective balance ability, gait endurance and fall incidence.
resultsTwo randomised controlled trials with a total of 49 participants were used as data sources for this study. The obstacle avoidance training (training) group had lower gait speed than the control group (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16, p=0.51). Further, the certainty of evidence was very low. The subjective balance ability (Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale) was not significantly different between the training and control groups (MD 6.65, 95% CI -7.59 to 20.89, p=0.36), and it showed very low certainty of evidence.
conclusionsObstacle avoidance training may have little or no effect on individuals with stroke. The failure to find the effectiveness of obstacle avoidance training alone is possibly attributable to the insufficient amount of training in the intervention and the lack of well-designed studies that measured relevant outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017060691.
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.