ReviewInternational journal of critical illness and injury science
Effectiveness of backward gait training on body composition, cardiopulmonary fitness, inflammation, and metabolic marker in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of critical illness and injury science. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Walking is a fundamental physical activity with significant health implications. Backward gait training (BGT) has emerged as a novel approach with potential benefits, yet its effects in comparison to traditional forward gait training (FGT) remain uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of BGT on body composition, cardiopulmonary fitness, and inflammatory and metabolic markers in adults. A comprehensive search across electronic databases was conducted following the Preferred Publishing Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing BGT with FGT in adults were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The analysis included a total of 379 male participants across the studies. The meta-analysis demonstrated significant changes in body composition and inflammatory marker outcomes, which included waist-to-height ratio (standardized mean difference [SMD]-1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]-1.89-0.48, I2 = 83%,
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.