Observational studyScientific reports2022
Use and subjective experience of the impact of motor-assisted movement exercisers in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a multicenter observational study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Attributes Influencing Preferences for Treatments and Interventions in People With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS).Muscle & nerve · 2025Pooled it
- Safety, feasibility and preliminary effects of Atalante exoskeleton-assisted gait training in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a prospective ABA pilot study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Article
- Review
- Physical activity and lifestyle modifications in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motor-assisted movement exercisers (MME) are devices that assist with physical therapy in domestic settings for people living with ALS. This observational cross-sectional study assesses the subjective experience of the therapy and analyzes users' likelihood of recommending treatment with MME. The study was implemented in ten ALS centers between February 2019 and October 2020, and was coordinated by the research platform Ambulanzpartner. Participants assessed symptom severity, documented frequency of MME use and rated the subjective benefits of therapy on a numerical scale (NRS, 0 to 10 points, with 10 being the highest). The Net Promotor Score (NPS) determined the likelihood of a participant recommending MME. Data for 144 participants were analyzed. Weekly MME use ranged from 1 to 4 times for 41% of participants, 5 to 7 times for 42%, and over 7 times for 17%. Particularly positive results were recorded in the following domains: amplification of a sense of achievement (67%), diminution of the feeling of having rigid limbs (63%), diminution of the feeling of being immobile (61%), improvement of general wellbeing (55%) and reduction of muscle stiffness (52%). Participants with more pronounced self-reported muscle weakness were more likely to note a beneficial effect on the preservation and improvement of muscle strength during MME treatment (p < 0.05). Overall, the NPS for MME was high (+ 61). High-frequency MME-assisted treatment (defined as a minimum of five sessions a week) was administered in the majority of participants (59%) in addition to physical therapy. Most patients reported having achieved their individual therapeutic objectives, as evidenced by a high level of satisfaction with MME therapy. The results bolster the justification for extended MME treatment as part of a holistic approach to ALS care.
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.