SynthesisJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024
Clinical indications and protocol considerations for selecting initial body weight support levels in gait rehabilitation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBody weight support (BWS) training devices are frequently used to improve gait in individuals with neurological impairments, but guidance in selecting an appropriate level of BWS is limited. Here, we aim to describe the initial BWS levels used during gait training, the rationale for this selection and the clinical goals aligned with BWS training for different diagnoses.
methodA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, including terms related to the population (individuals with neurological disorders), intervention (BWS training) and outcome (gait). Information on patient characteristics, type of BWS device, BWS level and training goals was extracted from the included articles.
resultsThirty-three articles were included, which described outcomes using frame-based (stationary or mobile) and unidirectional ceiling-mounted devices on four diagnoses (multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI)). The BWS levels were highest for individuals with MS (median: 75%, IQR: 6%), followed by SCI (median: 40%, IQR: 35%), stroke (median: 30%, IQR: 4.75%) and TBI (median: 15%, IQR: 0%). The included studies reported eleven different training goals. Reported BWS levels ranged between 30 and 75% for most of the training goals, without a clear relationship between BWS level, diagnosis, training goal and rationale for BWS selection. Training goals were achieved in all included studies.
conclusionInitial BWS levels differ considerably between studies included in this review. The underlying rationale for these differences was not clearly motivated in the included studies. Variation in study designs and populations does not allow to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of BWS levels. Hence, it remains difficult to formulate guidelines on optimal BWS settings for different diagnoses, BWS devices and training goals. Further efforts are required to establish clinical guidelines and to experimentally investigate which initial BWS levels are optimal for specific diagnoses and training goals.
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.