SynthesisPloS one2024
Direct biomechanical manipulation of human gait stability: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Upgrade of a Robot That Enables Three-Dimensional Trunk Motion and Lower Limb Exercise for Stroke Patients: A Pilot Clinical Investigation Including a User Feasibility Test.BioMed research international · 2026Trial
- Video-based gait analysis for clinical monitoring of genotype-specific functional patterns in osteogenesis imperfecta.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Is levodopa induced freezing of gait a paradox or an expected phenomenon?: a clinico-pathophysiological hypothesis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People fall more often when their gait stability is reduced. Gait stability can be directly manipulated by exerting forces or moments onto a person, ranging from simple walking sticks to complex wearable robotics. A systematic review of the literature was performed to determine: What is the level of evidence for different types of mechanical manipulations on improving gait stability? The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020180631). Databases Embase, Medline All, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched. The final search was conducted on the 1st of December, 2022. The included studies contained mechanical devices that influence gait stability for both impaired and non-impaired subjects. Studies performed with prosthetic devices, passive orthoses, and analysing post-training effects were excluded. An adapted NIH quality assessment tool was used to assess the study quality and risk of bias. Studies were grouped based on the type of device, point of application, and direction of forces and moments. For each device type, a best-evidence synthesis was performed to quantify the level of evidence based on the type of validity of the reported outcome measures and the study quality assessment score. Impaired and non-impaired study participants were considered separately. From a total of 4701 papers, 53 were included in our analysis. For impaired subjects, indicative evidence was found for medio-lateral pelvis stabilisation for improving gait stability, while limited evidence was found for hip joint assistance and canes. For non-impaired subjects, moderate evidence was found for medio-lateral pelvis stabilisation and limited evidence for body weight support. For all other device types, either indicative or insufficient evidence was found for improving gait stability. Our findings also highlight the lack of consensus on outcome measures amongst studies of devices focused on manipulating gait.
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.