ArticleHeliyon2022
Sensory substitution for orthopaedic gait rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis for clinical practice guideline development.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Sensory Substitution is a biofeedback intervention whereby at least sensory system is utilised to supplement environmental information which is traditionally gathered by another sense. Objective: To present an evidence-based overview of the feasibility and effectiveness of wearable Sensory Substitution devices on gait outcomes in orthopaedic patient populations. Methods: This Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis was reported according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of science and PEDro were searched for relevant published literature. Inclusion criteria limited the search strictly to patients diagnosed with an orthopaedic condition and who were randomly grouped to a Sensory Substitution intervention or conventional therapy/training or an equivalent placebo intervention. Results: Nine Randomised Controlled Trials and three Crossover Trials investigating the effectiveness of Sensory Substitution supplemented gait training were identified and included participants with a variety of orthopaedic conditions. Meta-Analyses revealed positive findings of feasibility as well as statistical and clinical effect of the interventions in improving measures of gait speed, weight-bearing control, measures of functionality and subjective self-reporting. Meta-Analyses also revealed the interventions effects were not significant in the management of pain and retention of gait speed. Negatively reinforced Sensory Substitution biofeedback was statistically and clinically effective, whilst positively reinforced biofeedback was not. Conclusion: For orthopaedic patient populations to improve gait speed, weight-bearing control, functionality, pain and self-report measures, the authors recommend a Sensory Substitution supplemented gait training programme with negative biofeedback on performance. The intervention should be undertaken for 20 min per day, 3 days per week for 5 weeks. The intervention should coincide with structured analgesia administration to facilitate effective pain management. Limitations of the data included some low sample sizes and large age-ranges. No financial support was provided for this study.
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.