Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32392652›Full record

ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2020

Energy Efficiency and Patient Satisfaction of Gait With Knee-Ankle-Foot Orthosis and Robot (ReWalk)-Assisted Gait in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury.

Seung Hyun Kwon, Bum Suk Lee, Hye Jin Lee, Eun Joo Kim, Jung Ah Lee, Sung Phil Yang, Tae Young Kim, Han Ram Pak, Hyun Ki Kim, Hae Young Kim and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Overview of the role of robots in upper limb disabilities rehabilitation: a scoping review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Seung Hyun KwonDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Seoul, Korea.
Bum Suk LeeDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Seoul, Korea.
Hye Jin LeeDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Seoul, Korea.
Eun Joo KimDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Seoul, Korea.
Jung Ah LeeDepartment of Clinical Research on Rehabilitation, National Rehabilitation Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.
Sung Phil YangDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, National Rehabilitation Center, Seoul, Korea.
Tae Young KimDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, National Rehabilitation Center, Seoul, Korea.
Han Ram PakDepartment of Clinical Research on Rehabilitation, National Rehabilitation Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.
Hyun Ki KimDepartment of Clinical Research on Rehabilitation, National Rehabilitation Research Institute, Seoul, Korea.
Hae Young KimDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Seoul, Korea.
Joo Hwan JungDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Seoul, Korea.
Sang Wook OhDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, National Rehabilitation Center, Seoul, Korea.
National Rehabilitation Center · KR

Funding

Korea National Rehabilitation CenterMinistry of Health and Welfare NRCTR-IN17003Translational Research Center for Rehabilitation Robots
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the energy efficiency of gait with knee-ankle-foot orthosis (KAFO) and robot-assisted gait and to develop a usability questionnaire to evaluate the satisfaction of walking devices in paraplegic patients with spinal cord injuries.

methodsThirteen patients with complete paraplegia participated and 10 completed the evaluation. They were trained to walk with KAFO (KAFO-gait) or a ReWalk robot (ReWalk-gait) for 4 weeks (20 sessions). After a 2-week wash-out period, they switched walking devices and underwent 4 additional weeks of training. Two evaluations were performed (after 2 and 4 weeks) following the training periods for each walking device, using the 6-minute walking test (6MWT) and 30-minute walking test (30MWT). The spatiotemporal variables (walking distance, velocity, and cadence) and energy expenditure (heart rate, maximal heart rate, the physiologic cost index, oxygen consumption, metabolic equivalents, and energy efficiency) were evaluated duringthe 6MWT and 30MWT. A usability evaluation questionnaire for walking devices was developed based on the International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission guidelines through expert consultation.

resultsThe ReWalk-gait presented significant advantages in energy efficiency compared to KAFO-gait in the 6MWT and 30MWT; however, there were no differences in walking distance or speed in the 30MWT between ReWalk-gait and KAFOgait. The usability test demonstrated that ReWalk-gait was not superior to KAFO-gait in terms of safety, efficacy, efficiency, or patient satisfaction.

conclusionThe robot (ReWalk) enabled patients with paraplegia to walk with lower energy consumption compared to KAFO, but the ReWalk-gait was not superior to KAFO-gaitin terms of patient satisfaction.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton deviceMobility limitationOrthotic devicePatient satisfactionSpinal cord injuries

Identifiers

PMID32392652
PMCPMC7214138
OpenAlexW3022210539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.