Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37739462›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Effect of robotic-assisted gait training on gait and motor function in spinal cord injury: a protocol of a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Lei Wang, Jin-Lin Peng, Ai-Lian Chen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lei WangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0424-8348
Jin-Lin PengTongji Hospital of Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Ai-Lian ChenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Hunan Provincial People's Hospital, Changsha, Hunan, China 652326303@qq.com.
Hunan Provincial People's Hospital · CNTongji Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) has been reported to be effective in rehabilitating patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, studies on RAGT showed different results due to a varied number of samples. Thus, summarising studies based on robotic-related factors is critical for the accurate estimation of the effects of RAGT on SCI. This work aims to search for strong evidence showing that using RAGT is effective in treating SCI and analyse the deficiencies of current studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The following publication databases were electronically searched in December 2022 without restrictions on publication year: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Various combinations of keywords, including 'motor disorders', 'robotics', 'robotic-assisted gait training', 'Spinal Cord Injuries', 'SCI' and 'gait analysis' were used as search terms. All articles on randomised controlled trials (excluding retrospective trials) using RAGT to treat SCI that were published in English and Chinese and met the inclusion criteria were included. Outcomes included motor function, and gait parameters included those assessed by using the instrumented gait assessment, the Berg Balance Scale, the 10-m walk speed test, the 6-min walk endurance test, the functional ambulation category scale, the Walking index of SCI and the American Spinal Injury Association assessment scale. Research selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers to ensure that all relevant studies were free from personal bias. In addition, the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Review Manager V.5.3 software was used to produce deviation risk maps and perform paired meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for systematic reviews and network meta-analyses. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal or presented at a conference. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022319555.

Indexed as

GaitSpinal Cord InjuriesHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicRetrospective StudiesSystematic Reviews as TopicWalkingNeurological injuryNEUROSURGERYREHABILITATION MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID37739462
PMCPMC10533792
OpenAlexW4386969568

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.