ArticleSpinal cord2024
Effect on functional outcome of robotic assisted rehabilitation versus conventional rehabilitation in patients with complete spinal cord injury: a prospective comparative study.
Article in Spinal cord, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic-assisted gait training for spinal cord injury neuropathic pain: A systematic review.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-Assisted Rehabilitation and Spinal Neuromodulation After Spinal Cord Injury: From Mechanisms to Trial-Informed Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Long-Term Prospective Validation of the AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Factors affecting rehabilitation participation in patients with spinal cord injury.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2025Article
- Quantifying Treatments as Usual and with Technologies in Neurorehabilitation of Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designProspective Comparative Study.
objectiveThis study aims to compare the functional outcomes of Robotic-assisted rehabilitation by Lokomat system Vs. Conventional rehabilitation in participants with Dorsolumbar complete spinal cord injury (SCI).
settingUniversity level teaching hospital in a hilly state of northern India.
methods15 participants with Dorsolumbar SCI with ASIA A neurology were allocated to robotic rehabilitation and 15 participants to conventional rehabilitation after an operative procedure. Pre-and Post-rehabilitation parameters were noted in terms of ASIA Neurology, Motor and sensory function scores, WISCI II score (Walking Index in SCI score), LEMS (Lower Extremity Motor Score), SCI M III score (Spinal Cord Independence Measure III score), AO Spine PROST (AO Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma), McGill QOL score (Mc Gill Quality of Life score), VAS score (Visual Analogue Scale) for pain and Modified Ashworth scale for spasticity in lower limbs.
resultsOn comparing robotic group with conventional group there was a statistically significant improvement in Robotic-assisted rehabilitation group in terms of Motor score (p = 0.034), WISCI II score (p = 0.0001), SCIM III score (p = 0.0001), AO PROST score (p = 0.0001), Mc GILL QOL score (p = 0.0001), Max velocity (p = 0.0001) and Step length (p = 0.0001). Whereas LEMS score (p = 0.052), ASIA neurology (p = 0.264 (ASIA A); 1.000 (ASIA B); 0.053 (ASIA C)), VAS score (p = 0.099), Sensory score (p = 0.422) and Modified Ashworth scale for spasticity (p = 0.136) were not statically significant when comparing between two groups.
conclusionRobot-assisted rehabilitation is superior than conventional rehabilitation in people living with SCI with AIS A neurology. Differences in the patient group, type of a lesion its and severity, duration from onset to initiation of rehabilitation, devices employed, administration of the therapies and regulation of interventions are likely the cause of variations in the findings seen in the literature for robotic assisted training. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38491302What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.