SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2024
Effect of robotic exoskeleton training on lower limb function, activity and participation in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Powered knee-assisting exoskeletons for gait rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical outcomes.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Flexible exoskeleton-assisted training enhances lower limb motor function after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of different intensity training with a lower limb exoskeleton robot on walking function in people with subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Trial
- Effects of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation added to robotic rehabilitation in patients with ischemic stroke: a randomized clinical trial.BMC neurology · 2026Trial
- Integrative Rehabilitation for War-Related Polytrauma: A Narrative Review of Multidimensional Strategies and Implementation Challenges.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effects of Gait Training with Lower-Limb Robotic Exoskeletons and Exoskeleton-Type Devices on Gait Symmetry and Gait Speed in Patients with Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Validation of the Taiwan Chinese Version of the Assistive Technology Usability Questionnaire for People With Neurological Diseases for Wearable Robotic Exoskeletons: Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Exploring the Feasibility and Patient Acceptance of RAGT for Overground Ambulation in Adults With Guillain-Barré Syndrome: A Scoping Review.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2026Review
- Pathology-Informed Personalized Exoskeleton Assistance for Post-Stroke Gait Rehabilitation via Simulation-to-Real Reinforcement Learning.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Background: The current lower limb robotic exoskeleton training (LRET) for treating and managing stroke patients remains a huge challenge. Comprehensive ICF analysis and informative treatment options are needed. This review aims to analyze LRET' s efficacy for stroke patients, based on ICF, and explore the impact of intervention intensities, devices, and stroke phases. Methods: We searched Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library for RCTs on LRET for stroke patients. Two authors reviewed studies, extracted data, and assessed quality and bias. Standardized protocols were used. PEDro and ROB2 were employed for quality assessment. All analyses were done with RevMan 5.4. Results: Thirty-four randomized controlled trials (1,166 participants) were included. For function, LRET significantly improved motor control (MD = 1.15, 95%CI = 0.29-2.01, Conclusion: These findings offer insights for healthcare professionals to make effective LRET choices based on stroke patient needs though uncertainties remain. Particularly, the assessment of ICF participation levels and the design of time-intensive training deserve further study. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, Unique Identifier: CRD42024501750.
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.