ArticleJournal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering
Acute orthostatic responses during early mobilisation of patients with acquired brain injury - Innowalk pro versus standing frame.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation and assistive technologies engineering. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Early mobilisation is paramount in the rehabilitation of patients with acquired brain injuries. However, the effectiveness of mobilisation to standing combined with passive leg movement in mitigating orthostatic intolerance remains uncertain. Hence, we investigated whether participants exhibited better tolerance standing in a motorized standing device with passive leg movements, Innowalk Pro, compared to a traditional standing frame. Methods: 17 patients with acquired brain injury (<1 year post-injury) performed two sessions in each standing device on four separate days. Maximum standing time was 30 min, less when symptoms of syncope or volitional exhaustion occurred. Besides total standing time, electromyography of thigh muscles, and changes in mean arterial pressure and heart rate were monitored at rest and during standing. Results: No significant differences were found in standing time, changes in mean arterial pressure or heart rate between standing in Innowalk Pro and the standing frame. However, participants had significantly more thigh muscle activation ( Conclusions: Mobilising participants with a subacute acquired brain injury in a standing frame with motorised passive movements of the lower limbs did, despite higher thigh muscle activation, not lead to better orthostatic tolerance or prolonged standing time compared to a traditional standing frame.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.