Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37709309›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2023

Effect of exoskeleton robot-assisted training on gait function in chronic stroke survivors: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Jinchao Yang, Yu Gong, Lei Yu, Laiying Peng, Yuanfen Cui, Hailong Huang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Robot-assisted gait training in stroke.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

6 authors.

Jinchao YangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Yu GongDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Lei YuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Laiying PengDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Yuanfen CuiDepartment of Pain Management, Wuhan No 1 Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Hailong HuangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China hailong.huang@whu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-2535-5516

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesNumbers of research have reported the usage of robot-assisted gait training for walking restoration post-stroke. However, no consistent conclusion has been reached yet about the efficacy of exoskeleton robot-assisted training (ERAT) on gait function of stroke survivors, especially during the chronic period. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the efficacy of ERAT on gait function for chronic stroke survivors.

designThis review followed the Participant, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome principle. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were systematically searched until December 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included and these RCTs took patients who had a chronic stroke as participants, exoskeleton robot-assisted gait training as intervention, regular rehabilitation therapy as comparison and gait-related functional assessments as outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction and synthesis used the reporting checklist for systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The risk of bias and methodological quality of included studies were evaluated by two independent investigators under the guidance of Cochrane risk of bias.

resultsOut of 278 studies, a total of 10 studies (n=323, mean age 57.6 years, 63.2% males) were identified in this systematic review. According to the Cochrane risk of bias, the quality of these studies was assessed as low risk. Six studies reported favourable effects of ERAT on gait function involving gait performance, balance function and physical endurance, and the ERAT group was significantly superior when compared with the control group. In contrast, the other four trials showed equal or negative effects of ERAT considering different study designs. All the included studies did not claim any serious adverse events.

conclusionERAT could be an efficient intervention to improve gait function for individuals who had a chronic stroke. However, more rigorously designed trials are required to draw more solid evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023410796.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton DeviceRoboticsChecklistFemaleGaitHumansMaleMiddle AgedWalkingChronic strokeExoskeletonGaitRobot-assisted trainingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37709309
PMCPMC10503387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.