Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38020595›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2023

The effect of balance and gait training on specific balance abilities of survivors with stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Meng Zhang, Zhide Liang, Yali Li, Jun Meng, Xu Jiang, Bichan Xu, Haojie Li, Tao Liu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Meng ZhangPostgraduate Department, Xi'an Physical Education University, Xi'an, China.
Zhide LiangSchool of Physical Education, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Yali LiPostgraduate Department, Xi'an Physical Education University, Xi'an, China.
Jun MengSchool of Physical Education, Gunagxi Minzu Normal University, Chongzuo, China.
Xu JiangPostgraduate Department, Xi'an Physical Education University, Xi'an, China.
Bichan XuPostgraduate Department, Xi'an Physical Education University, Xi'an, China.
Haojie LiSchool of Physical Education, Gunagxi Minzu Normal University, Chongzuo, China.
Tao LiuSchool of Exercise and Health Sciences, Xi'an Physical Education University, Xi'an, China.
Xi'an Physical Education University · CNMinzu University of China · CNQingdao University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Stroke, which is a common clinical cerebrovascular disease, causes approximately 83% of survivors to suffer from balance impairments. Balance and gait training (BGT) is widely used to restore balance in patients with stroke. However, its wide variety presents clinicians with a dilemma when selecting interventions. This study aimed to compare and rank BGT interventions by quantifying information based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of non-gait-trained controls and head-to-head RCTs and compared the effects of 12 BGT interventions. A total of nine literature databases, including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, and Chinese biomedical literature databases, were searched from their database inception to August 2023. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. The difference in outcomes, which were expressed as standardized mean differences and confidence intervals (CIs) of 95%, were explored in this meta-analysis. Results: A total of 66 studies with 1,933 participants were included. Effect size estimates showed that not all BGT interventions were more effective than controls, with treadmill training as the least effective for balance test batteries (SMD = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.27]) and proactive balance (SMD = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.14]). Body-weight-supported treadmill training with external stimulation was most effective for proactive balance and dynamic steady-state balance (SMD = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.16]); SMD = 1.18, 95% CI [0.67, 1.68]. Virtual reality gait training (SMD = 1.37, 95% CI [0.62, 2.11]) had the best effect on improving balance test batteries, while dual-task BGT (SMD = 1.64, 95% CI [0.50, 2.78]) had the best effect on static steady-state balance. After analyses for possible impact covariates, the findings through the outcomes did not change substantially. Confidence in the evidence was generally low or very low. Conclusion: This NMA suggested that virtual reality gait training was the most effective BGT modality for improving balance test batteries. Body-weight support treadmill training with external stimulation was the most effective for improving active and dynamic balance. In addition, dual-task BGT was the best choice for improving static balance. However, balance is a multidimensional concept, and patients' different needs should be considered when selecting BGT. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022316057, ID: CRD42022316057.

Indexed as

balancegaitnetwork meta-analysisrehabilitationstroke

Identifiers

PMID38020595
PMCPMC10653323
OpenAlexW4388302813

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.