Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35493806›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2022

Comparison of Efficacy of Lokomat and Wearable Exoskeleton-Assisted Gait Training in People With Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Lingjie Zhang, Fabin Lin, Lei Sun, Chunmei Chen

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07767955 (Healthcare Professionals' Satisfaction With Various Exoskeleton Models), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.5field-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.

NCT07767955 completednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Healthcare Professionals' Satisfaction With Various Exoskeleton Models

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of Sao Paulo General HospitalRan2024 to 2025Enrolled14ConditionsParaplegia and TetraplegiaArmsExoskeleton
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lingjie ZhangSchool of Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Fabin LinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Lei SunSchool of Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Chunmei ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China.
Fujian Medical University · CNUnion Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Lokomat and wearable exoskeleton-assisted walking (EAW) have not been directly compared previously. To conduct a network meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials to assess locomotor abilities achieved with two different types of robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) program in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: Three electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched for randomized and non-randomized controlled trials published before August 2021, which assessed locomotor abilities after RAGT. Results: Of 319 studies identified for this review, 12 studies were eligible and included in our analysis. Studies from 2013 to 2021 were covered and contained 353 valid data points (N-353) on patients with SCI receiving wearable EWA and Lokomat training. In the case of wearable EAW, the 10-m walk test (10-MWT) distance and speed scores significantly increased [distance: 0.85 (95% CI = 0.35, 1.34); speed: -1.76 (95% CI = -2.79, -0.73)]. The 6-min walk test (6-MWT) distance [-1.39 (95% CI = -2.01, -0.77)] and the timed up and go (TUG) test significantly increased [(1.19 (95% CI = 0.74, 1.64)], but no significant difference was observed in the walking index for spinal cord injury (WISCI-II) [-0.33 (95% CI = -0.79, 0.13)]. Among the patients using Lokomat, the 10-MWT-distance score significantly increased [-0.08 (95% CI = -0.14, -0.03)] and a significant increase in the WISCI-II was found [1.77 (95% CI = 0.23, 3.31)]. The result of network meta-analysis showed that the probability of wearable EAW to rank first and that of Lokomat to rank second was 89 and 47%, respectively, in the 10-MWT speed score, while that of Lokomat to rank first and wearable EAW to rank second was 73 and 63% in the WISCI-II scores. Conclusion: Lokomat and wearable EAW had effects on the performance of locomotion abilities, namely, distance, speed, and function. Wearable EAW might lead to better outcomes in walking speed compared with that in the case of Lokomat.

Indexed as

EAWlocomotorLokomatnetwork meta-analysisspinal cord injuries

Identifiers

PMID35493806
PMCPMC9044921
OpenAlexW4224119254

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.