Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36805777›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023

Control strategies used in lower limb exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation after brain injury: a systematic review and analysis of clinical effectiveness.

Jesús de Miguel-Fernández, Joan Lobo-Prat, Erik Prinsen, Josep M Font-Llagunes, Laura Marchal-Crespo

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Enhanced gastrocnemius-mimicking lower limb powered exoskeleton robot.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025
    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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jesús de Miguel-FernándezBiomechanical Engineering Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Research Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Diagonal 647, 08028, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8651-1642
Joan Lobo-PratABLE Human Motion, Diagonal 647, 08028, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4197-1391
Erik PrinsenRoessingh Research and Development, Roessinghsbleekweg 33b, 7522AH, Enschede, Netherlands.
Josep M Font-LlagunesBiomechanical Engineering Lab, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Research Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Diagonal 647, 08028, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7192-2980
Laura Marchal-CrespoCognitive Robotics Department, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628, Delft, Netherlands. laura.marchal@unibe.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-8008-5803
Sant Joan de Déu Research Foundation · ESClínica Diagonal · ESRoessingh Research and Development · NLUniversity of Bern · CH

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation PP00P2163800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the past decade, there has been substantial progress in the development of robotic controllers that specify how lower-limb exoskeletons should interact with brain-injured patients. However, it is still an open question which exoskeleton control strategies can more effectively stimulate motor function recovery. In this review, we aim to complement previous literature surveys on the topic of exoskeleton control for gait rehabilitation by: (1) providing an updated structured framework of current control strategies, (2) analyzing the methodology of clinical validations used in the robotic interventions, and (3) reporting the potential relation between control strategies and clinical outcomes.

methodsFour databases were searched using database-specific search terms from January 2000 to September 2020. We identified 1648 articles, of which 159 were included and evaluated in full-text. We included studies that clinically evaluated the effectiveness of the exoskeleton on impaired participants, and which clearly explained or referenced the implemented control strategy.

results(1) We found that assistive control (100% of exoskeletons) that followed rule-based algorithms (72%) based on ground reaction force thresholds (63%) in conjunction with trajectory-tracking control (97%) were the most implemented control strategies. Only 14% of the exoskeletons implemented adaptive control strategies. (2) Regarding the clinical validations used in the robotic interventions, we found high variability on the experimental protocols and outcome metrics selected. (3) With high grade of evidence and a moderate number of participants (N = 19), assistive control strategies that implemented a combination of trajectory-tracking and compliant control showed the highest clinical effectiveness for acute stroke. However, they also required the longest training time. With high grade of evidence and low number of participants (N = 8), assistive control strategies that followed a threshold-based algorithm with EMG as gait detection metric and control signal provided the highest improvements with the lowest training intensities for subacute stroke. Finally, with high grade of evidence and a moderate number of participants (N = 19), assistive control strategies that implemented adaptive oscillator algorithms together with trajectory-tracking control resulted in the highest improvements with reduced training intensities for individuals with chronic stroke.

conclusionsDespite the efforts to develop novel and more effective controllers for exoskeleton-based gait neurorehabilitation, the current level of evidence on the effectiveness of the different control strategies on clinical outcomes is still low. There is a clear lack of standardization in the experimental protocols leading to high levels of heterogeneity. Standardized comparisons among control strategies analyzing the relation between control parameters and biomechanical metrics will fill this gap to better guide future technical developments. It is still an open question whether controllers that provide an on-line adaptation of the control parameters based on key biomechanical descriptors associated to the patients' specific pathology outperform current control strategies.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesExoskeleton DeviceNeurological RehabilitationRoboticsHumansTreatment OutcomeBrain injuryCerebral palsyGait rehabilitationLiterature synthesisLower limbPowered exoskeletonStroke

Identifiers

PMID36805777
PMCPMC9938998
OpenAlexW4321352025

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.