ArticlePloS one2022
Step-to-step variability indicates disruption to balance control when linking the arms and legs during treadmill walking.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We recently discovered that a rope-pulley system that mechanically coupling the arms, legs and treadmill during walking can assist with forward propulsion in healthy subjects, leading to significant reductions in metabolic cost. However, walking balance may have been compromised, which could hinder the potential use of this device for gait rehabilitation. We performed a secondary analysis by quantifying average step width, step length, and step time, and used their variability to reflect simple metrics of walking balance (n = 8). We predicted an increased variability in at least one of these metrics when using the device, which would indicate disruptions to walking balance. When walking with the device, subjects increased their average step width (p < 0.05), but variability in step width and step length remained similar (p's > 0.05). However, the effect size for step length variability when compared to that of mechanical perturbation experiments suggest a minimal to moderate disruption in balance (Rosenthal ES = 0.385). The most notable decrement in walking balance was an increase in step time variability (p < 0.05; Cohen's d = 1.286). Its effect size reveals a moderate disruption when compared to the effect sizes observed in those with balance deficits (effect sizes ranged between 0.486 to 1.509). Overall, we conclude that healthy subjects experienced minimal to moderate disruptions in walking balance when using with this device. These data indicate that in future clinical experiments, it will be important to not only consider the mechanical and metabolic effects of using such a device but also its potential to disrupt walking balance, which may be exacerbated in patients with poor balance control.
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.