Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33892754›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021

Task-specific training for improving propulsion symmetry and gait speed in people in the chronic phase after stroke: a proof-of-concept study.

J F Alingh, B E Groen, J F Kamphuis, A C H Geurts, V Weerdesteyn

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04650802 (Improving Propulsion of the Paretic Leg In Chronic Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

NCT04650802 nacompletednot on this map

Improving Propulsion of the Paretic Leg In Chronic Stroke

TypeinterventionalSponsorSint MaartenskliniekRan2019 to 2020Enrolled29ConditionsStrokeArmsGait training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J F AlinghSint Maartenskliniek Research, PO Box 9011, 6500 GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9970-3106
B E GroenSint Maartenskliniek Research, PO Box 9011, 6500 GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J F KamphuisDepartment of Rehabilitation, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
A C H GeurtsSint Maartenskliniek Research, PO Box 9011, 6500 GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
V WeerdesteynSint Maartenskliniek Research, PO Box 9011, 6500 GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. vivian.weerdesteyn@radboudumc.nl.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLSint Maartenskliniek · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAfter stroke, some individuals have latent, propulsive capacity of the paretic leg, that can be elicited during task-specific gait training. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to investigate the effect of five-week robotic gait training for improving propulsion symmetry by increasing paretic propulsion in chronic stroke survivors.

methodsTwenty-nine individuals with chronic stroke and impaired paretic propulsion (≥ 8% difference in paretic vs. non-paretic propulsive impulse) were enrolled. Participants received ten 60-min sessions of individual robotic gait training targeting paretic propulsion (five weeks, twice a week), complemented with home exercises (15 min/day) focusing on increasing strength and practicing learned strategies in daily life. Propulsion measures, gait kinematics and kinetics, self-selected gait speed, performance of functional gait tasks, and daily-life mobility and physical activity were assessed five weeks (T0) and one week (T1) before the start of intervention, and one week (T2) and five weeks (T3) after the intervention period.

resultsBetween T0 and T1, no significant differences in outcomes were observed, except for a marginal increase in gait speed (+ 2.9%). Following the intervention, propulsion symmetry (+ 7.9%) and paretic propulsive impulse had significantly improved (+ 8.1%), whereas non-paretic propulsive impulse remained unchanged. Larger gains in propulsion symmetry were associated with more asymmetrical propulsion at T0. In addition, following the intervention significantly greater paretic trailing limb angles (+ 6.6%) and ankle plantarflexion moments (+ 7.1%) were observed. Furthermore, gait speed (+ 7.2%), 6-Minute Walk Test (+ 6.4%), Functional Gait Assessment (+ 6.5%), and daily-life walking intensity (+ 6.9%) had increased following the intervention. At five-week follow-up (T3), gains in all outcomes were retained, and gait speed had further increased (+ 3.6%).

conclusionsThe post-intervention gain in paretic propulsion did not only translate into improved propulsion symmetry and gait speed, but also pertained to performance of functional gait tasks and daily-life walking activity levels. These findings suggest that well-selected chronic stroke survivors may benefit from task-specific targeted training to utilize the residual propulsive capacity of the paretic leg. Future research is recommended to establish simple baseline measures for identification of individuals who may benefit from such training and confirm benefits of the used training concepts in a randomized controlled trial.

trial registrationRegistry number ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ): NCT04650802, retrospectively registered 3 December 2020.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton DeviceAgedAnkle JointExercise TherapyFemaleGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansMaleMiddle AgedProof of Concept StudyStrokeStroke RehabilitationWalking SpeedBiomechanicsGaitPropulsionRehabilitationRoboticsSpeedStroke

Identifiers

PMID33892754
PMCPMC8062933
OpenAlexW3153818333

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.