Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36675371›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Robotic versus Conventional Overground Gait Training in Subacute Stroke Survivors: A Multicenter Controlled Clinical Trial.

Sanaz Pournajaf, Rocco Salvatore Calabrò, Antonino Naro, Michela Goffredo, Irene Aprile, Federica Tamburella, Serena Filoni, Andreas Waldner, Stefano Mazzoleni, Antonella Focacci and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Robot-assisted gait training in stroke.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. The effect of the LokomatFrontiers in neurology · 2023
    Review
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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Sanaz PournajafNeurorehabilitation Research Laboratory, Department of Neurological and Rehabilitation Sciences, IRCCS San Raffaele Roma, 00163 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8749-2236
Rocco Salvatore CalabròIRCCS Centro Neurolesi Bonino-Pulejo, 98124 Messina, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8566-3166
Antonino NaroStroke Unit, Policlinico Universitario G. Martino, 98123 Messina, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9582-7400
Michela GoffredoNeurorehabilitation Research Laboratory, Department of Neurological and Rehabilitation Sciences, IRCCS San Raffaele Roma, 00163 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2651-8479
Irene AprileIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, 50143 Florence, Italy.
Federica TamburellaLaboratory of Robotic Neurorehabilitation (NeuroRobot Lab.), Spinal Rehabilitation Laboratory (SPIRE Lab.), Neurorehabilitation 1 Department, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, 00124 Rome, Italy.
Serena FiloniFondazione Centri di Riabilitazione Padre Pio Onlus, 71013 San Giovani Rotondo, Italy.
Andreas WaldnerDepartment of Neurorehabilitation, Melittaklinik Hospital, 39100 Bolzano, Italy.
Stefano MazzoleniDepartment of Electrical and Information Engineering, Politecnico di Bari, 70121 Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9528-3239
Antonella FocacciS.C. Medicina Fisica e Riabilitazione, ASL 4 Ospedale di Sestri Levante, 16124 Genova, Italy.
Francesco FerraroStruttura Complessa di Riabilitazione Neuromotoria ASST Mantova Presidio di Bozzolo, 46012 Bozzolo, Italy.
Donatella BonaiutiItalian Scientific Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (SIMFER), 00198 Rome, Italy.
Marco FranceschiniNeurorehabilitation Research Laboratory, Department of Neurological and Rehabilitation Sciences, IRCCS San Raffaele Roma, 00163 Rome, Italy.
TreadStroke Group
Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Policlinico "G. Martino" · ITCentro Neurolesi Bonino Pulejo · ITDon Carlo Gnocchi Foundation · ITFondazione Santa Lucia · ITPolytechnic University of Bari · IT

Funding

Ministero della Salute Ricerca Corrente
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough stroke survivors can benefit from robotic gait rehabilitation, stationary robot-assisted gait training needs further investigation. In this paper, we investigated the efficacy of this approach (with an exoskeleton or an end-effector robot) in comparison to the conventional overground gait training in subacute stroke survivors.

methodsIn a multicenter controlled clinical trial, 89 subacute stroke survivors conducted twenty sessions of robot-assisted gait training (Robotic Group) or overground gait training (Control Group) in addition to the standard daily therapy. The robotic training was performed with an exoskeleton (RobotEXO-group) or an end-effector (RobotEND-group). Clinical outcomes were assessed before (T0) and after (T1) the treatment. The walking speed during the 10-Meter Walk Test (10 MWT) was the primary outcome of this study, and secondary outcomes were the 6-Minute Walk Test (6 MWT), Timed Up and Go test (TUG), and the modified Barthel Index (mBI).

resultsThe main characteristics assessed in the Robotic and Control groups did not differ at baseline. A significant benefit was detected from the 10 MWT in the Robotic Group at the end of the study period (primary endpoint). A benefit was also observed from the following parameters: 6 MWT, TUG, and mBI. Moreover, patients belonging to the Robot Group outperformed the Control Group in gait speed, endurance, balance, and ADL. The RobotEND-group improved their walking speed more than the RobotEXO-group.

conclusionThe stationary robot-assisted training improved walking ability better than the conventional training in subacute stroke survivors. These results suggest that people with subacute stroke may benefit from Robot-Assisted training in potentiating gait speed and endurance. Our results also support that end-effector robots would be superior to exoskeleton robots for improving gait speed enhancement.

Indexed as

end-effectorexoskeletongaitrehabilitationroboticsstroke

Identifiers

PMID36675371
PMCPMC9861649
OpenAlexW4313641051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.