Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37092019›Full record

ArticleAnnals of Indian Academy of Neurology2023

Gait Training with Robotic Exoskeleton Assisted Rehabilitation System in Patients with Incomplete Traumatic and Non-Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Pilot Study and Review of Literature.

Anupam Gupta, Naveen B Prakash, Preethi R Honavar

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effect of LokomatMedical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anupam GuptaDepartment of Neurological Rehabilitation, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Naveen B PrakashDepartment of Neurological Rehabilitation, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Preethi R HonavarDepartment of Neurological Rehabilitation, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This pilot study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of robotic gait training and its' effects on gait parameters in individuals with incomplete motor spinal cord injury-SCI (AIS C and AIS D). Methods: The study was conducted in a tertiary research center with indigenously developed Robotic Exoskeleton Assisted Rehabilitation Systems (REARS). Primary outcome measures used were the ten-meter walk test (10MWT), two-minute walk test (2MWT), six-minute walk test (6MWT), the timed up and go test (TUG), the walking index for spinal cord injury II (WISCI II), and the spinal cord independence measure version III (SCIM III) at baseline, 12 sessions, and after 24 sessions (endpoint) of training. At baseline, individuals who could not perform 10MWT, TUG, and 6MWT were grouped in G1 for analysis. Participants in G2 were able to perform all the tests at baseline. Results: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age and duration of illness was 41 (24) years and 167 (147) days, respectively. Five out of seven participants had non-traumatic etiology and five were males. After completing training, participants in G1 were able to complete the 10MWT, 6MWT, and TUG, and the mean (SD) scores were 0.2 m/s (0.2), 66.3 m (61.2) and 113.3 s (117.4), respectively. Participants in G2 could perform the TUG test 13.5 s faster at the end of the study (11.9 s vs 25.4 s). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for TUG was 10.8 s. In G2, the pre-post training change in mean score of 10MWT and 6MWT was 0.11 m/s and 42 m, respectively; these values approached the MCID for these measures. None of the participants had any injury during training. Conclusions: Robotic gait training with REARS is safe and feasible. Such training may lead to an improvement in balance and walking capacity.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton robotgait trainingincomplete spinal cord injurylocomotion

Identifiers

PMID37092019
PMCPMC10114533
OpenAlexW4312922734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.