SynthesisBMJ open2024
Effectiveness of lower limb robotic rehabilitation on peak of oxygen uptake among patients with stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. 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
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of lower limb robotic rehabilitation (LLRR) on cardiovascular health among individuals with stroke undergoing rehabilitation.
designSystematic reviews and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wangfang and VIP databases were searched from inception to 9 October 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving LLRR among individuals with stroke were included. We considered the potential impact of LLRR on the resting heart rate (HRrest), peak of oxygen uptake (VO DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Results were reported as Hedges' g with 95% CIs. Meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model in STATA v17.0. The study was reported in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.
resultsFive RCTs with 179 patients were included in the meta-analysis. According to the Guideline Development Tool results, half of the evidence grades were moderate. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences among robotic rehabilitation group than the control group in VO
conclusionIndividuals undergoing stroke rehabilitation may benefit from LLRR with improved VO PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022382259.
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.