Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024
Is lateral external perturbation training more beneficial for protective stepping responses than voluntary stepping training in stroke? A pilot randomized control study.
Trial report 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, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
The study examined whether lateral perturbation training could improve stepping performance and balance in individuals post-stroke. Thirty-one participants with hemiparesis were randomly allocated to PERT (external perturbation) or VOL (voluntary stepping) step training. The PERT and VOL group consisted of 80 step trials predominantly in the lateral direction, with a small proportion of steps in the anterior/posterior direction. Outcome measures based on step type (medial and lateral) included step initiation time, step length, step clearance, step velocity during an induced waist pull perturbation and voluntary step, and clinical balance assessments. The PERT group initiated a lateral step faster with the non-paretic leg during the induced waist pull perturbation step (P = 0.044) than the VOL group after training. Both groups improved the non-paretic step length and step velocity during lateral steps. During the voluntary steps, the PERT group significantly initiated a voluntary step faster. No significant changes were observed in the paretic leg. Both groups significantly improved on the Community Balance & Mobility Scale and Activities Specific Balance Confidence Scale. Overall, we demonstrated that an exercise to improve stepping performance with external perturbations might provide more benefits in protective stepping responses than training with voluntary steps for individuals with a stroke.
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.