Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35331027›Full record

SynthesisClinical rehabilitation2022

Is robotic gait training effective for individuals with cerebral palsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Benjamin C Conner, Nushka M Remec, Zachary F Lerner

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin C ConnerCollege of Medicine - Phoenix, 42283University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9567-9989
Nushka M Remec14524Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Zachary F LernerCollege of Medicine - Phoenix, 42283University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
University of Arizona · USPhoenix Children's Hospital · US

Funding

Pediatric Gait Rehabilitation Via Wearable Robotic AssistanceR03HD094583 · NICHD · NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY · PI LERNER, ZACHARY FOREST · 2018 to 2019
$284k
Investigation of the neuromuscular response and training effects of wearable adaptive resistance in children with cerebral palsyF30HD103318 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI CONNER, BENJAMIN CHARLES · 2021 to 2024
$183k
NICHD NIH HHS F30 HD103318NICHD NIH HHS R03 HD094583
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo determine if robotic gait training for individuals with cerebral palsy is more effective than the standard of care for improving function.

methodPubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched from 1980-January, 2022 for articles that investigated robotic gait training versus standard of care (i.e. physical therapy or standard gait training) for individuals with cerebral palsy. Articles were included if a randomized controlled trial design was used, and excluded if robotic gait training was combined with another neuromuscular intervention, such as functional electrical stimulation. A meta-analysis of outcomes measured in at least four studies was conducted.

resultsEight citations met all criteria for full-text review and inclusion in the meta-analysis. A total of 188 individuals with cerebral palsy, ages four to 35, and Gross Motor Function Classification System levels I-IV were studied. Level of evidence ranged from 2b-1b. All studies utilized a tethered, assistive device for robotic gait training. The overall effect was not significantly different between the robotic gait training and control interventions for six minute walk test performance (95% CI: -0.17, 0.73;

conclusionTethered robotic devices that provide assistive gait training for individuals with cerebral palsy do not provide a greater benefit for improving mobility than the standard of care.

Indexed as

Cerebral PalsyRobotic Surgical ProceduresExercise TherapyGaitHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWalkingWalking SpeedCerebral palsymeta-analysismobilityrobotic gait trainingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35331027
PMCPMC10035373
OpenAlexW4220731298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.