Trial reportPloS one2022
Biomechanical differences between able-bodied and spinal cord injured individuals walking in an overground robotic exoskeleton.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of device-based neuromodulation on the motor recovery of patients with spinal cord injury.Spinal cord · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of an exoskeleton robot on motor function in patients with spinal cord injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Analysis of the kinematic pattern of free throw by wheelchair basketball athletes: a systematic review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Cerebral Theta-Burst Stimulation Combined with Physiotherapy in Patients with Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2023Trial
- Preference-based assistance optimization for lifting and lowering with a soft back exosuit.Science advances · 2025Article
- Hip, knee, and ankle joint forces during exoskeletal-assisted walking: Comparison of approaches to simulate human-robot interactions.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Springs vs. motors: Ideal assistance in the lower limbs during walking at different speeds.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Modularity Implications of an Overground Exoskeleton on Plantar Pressures, Strength, and Spasticity in Persons with Acquired Brain Injury.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Kinematic Analysis of Exoskeleton-Assisted Community Ambulation: An Observational Study in Outdoor Real-Life Scenarios.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic assisted gait training (RAGT) uses a powered exoskeleton to support an individual's body and move their limbs, with the aim of activating latent, pre-existing movement patterns stored in the lower spinal cord called central pattern generators (CPGs) to facilitate stepping. The parameters that directly stimulate the stepping CPGs (hip extension and ipsilateral foot unloading) should be targeted to maximise the rehabilitation benefits of these devices.
aimTo compare the biomechanical profiles of individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI) and able-bodied individuals inside the ReWalkTM powered exoskeleton and to contrast the users' profiles with the exoskeleton.
methodsEight able-bodied and four SCI individuals donned a ReWalkTM and walked along a 12-meter walkway, using elbow crutches. Whole-body kinematics of the users and the ReWalkTM were captured, along with GRF and temporal-spatial characteristics. Discreet kinematic values were analysed using a Kruskall-Wallis H and Dunn's post-hoc analysis. Upper-body differences, GRF and temporal-spatial characteristics were analysed using a Mann-Whitney U test (P<0.05).
resultsWalking speed ranged from 0.32-0.39m/s. Hip abduction, peak knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion for both the SCI and able-bodied groups presented with significant differences to the ReWalkTM. The able-bodied group presented significant differences to the ReWalkTM for all kinematic variables except frontal plane hip ROM (P = 0.093,δ = -0.56). Sagittal plane pelvic and trunk ROM were significantly greater in the SCI vs. able-bodied (P = 0.004,δ = -1; P = 0.008,δ = -0.94, respectively). Posterior braking force was significantly greater in the SCI group (P = 0.004, δ = -1). DISCUSSION: The different trunk movements used by the SCI group and the capacity for the users' joint angles to exceed those of the device suggest that biomechanical profiles varied according to the user group. However, upright stepping with the ReWalkTM device delivered the appropriate afferent stimulus to activate CPGs as there were no differences in key biomechanical parameters between the two user groups.
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.