Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37239175›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2023

Gait Recovery in Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review with Metanalysis Involving New Rehabilitative Technologies.

Giuseppe La Rosa, Marianna Avola, Tiziana Di Gregorio, Rocco Salvatore Calabrò, Maria Pia Onesta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Gait analysis methods in people with spinal cord injury: a systematic review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pediatric Spinal Cord Injury: A Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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

5 authors.

Giuseppe La RosaConsorzio Siciliano di Riabilitazione, 95100 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0287-1267
Marianna AvolaConsorzio Siciliano di Riabilitazione, 95100 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3177-8731
Tiziana Di GregorioUnità Spinale Unipolare, AO Cannizzaro, 98102 Catania, Italy.
Rocco Salvatore CalabròIRCCS Centro Neurolesi Bonino-Pulejo, 98124 Messina, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8566-3166
Maria Pia OnestaUnità Spinale Unipolare, AO Cannizzaro, 98102 Catania, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gait recovery is a fundamental goal in patients with spinal cord injury to attain greater autonomy and quality of life. Robotics is becoming a valid tool in improving motor, balance, and gait function in this patient population. Moreover, other innovative approaches are leading to promising results. The aim of this study was to investigate new rehabilitative methods for gait recovery in people who have suffered spinal cord injuries. A systematic review of the last 10 years of the literature was performed in three databases (PubMed, PEDro, andCochrane). We followed this PICO of the review: P: adults with non-progressive spinal cord injury; I: new rehabilitative methods; C: new methods vs. conventional methods; and O: improvement of gait parameters. When feasible, a comparison through ES forest plots was performed. A total of 18 RCTs of the 599 results obtained were included. The studies investigated robotic rehabilitation (

Indexed as

gait recoveryintermittent hypoxiarobotic rehabilitationspinal cord injurytranscranial direct current stimulationtranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37239175
PMCPMC10216369

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.