Trial reportMedicine2022
Intensity control of robot-assisted gait training based on biometric data: Preliminary study.
Trial report in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Comprehensive Review: Robot-Assisted Treatments for Gait Rehabilitation in Stroke Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study is aimed to compare the effect of robot-assisted gait training when the intensity is controlled using patients' biometric data to when controlled by therapist's subjective judgment.
designThis is non-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In biometric data control group, exercise intensity was controlled through the patient's heart rate or rating of perceived exertion (RPE). The intensity was raised to the next level when the patient's heart rate reserve was less than 40 percent or the RPE was less than 12 points. The exercise intensity of the therapist control group was adjusted according to the judgement of a therapist. All patients were instructed to perform robot (Morning Walk®)-assisted 20-minute gait training session five times a week during 3 weeks. The primary outcome was functional ambulation category (FAC). The secondary outcomes were modified Barthel index (MBI), Berg balance scale (BBS), timed up and go test (TUG) and 10-meter walk test (10MWT) The outcomes were evaluated at baseline and after 3-week gait training.
resultsA total of 55 patients with stroke were enrolled. After robotic rehabilitation, the primary outcome, FAC improved significantly (P < .05) in both groups. Also, secondary outcomes, including MBI, BBS, TUG, 10MWT, showed significant improvement (P < .05) in all groups. In addition, when comparing the functional change from baseline to week 3 between the two groups, there was no statistically significant difference in FAC (P > .05). The difference of baseline and week 3 of secondary outcome measure, MBI, BBS, TUG, 10MWT, showed no significant difference (P > .05).
conclusionIn conclusion, when the robot intensity was adjusted using the patient's heart rate or RPE, the treatment effect has no significant difference to when adjusting the intensity according to the know-how of the therapist.
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.