Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39639336›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024

Effectiveness of unilateral lower-limb exoskeleton robot on balance and gait recovery and neuroplasticity in patients with subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial.

Congcong Huo, Guangjian Shao, Tiandi Chen, Wenhao Li, Jue Wang, Hui Xie, Yan Wang, Zengyong Li, Pengyuan Zheng, Liguo Li and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Congcong HuoBeijing Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Technical Aids for Old-Age Disability, National Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, 100176, P.R. China.
Guangjian ShaoBeijing Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Technical Aids for Old-Age Disability, National Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, 100176, P.R. China.
Tiandi ChenBeijing Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Technical Aids for Old-Age Disability, National Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, 100176, P.R. China.
Wenhao LiSchool of Rehabilitation Engineering, China Civil Affairs University, Beijing, 102600, China.
Jue WangBeijing Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Technical Aids for Old-Age Disability, National Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, 100176, P.R. China.
Hui XieBeijing Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Technical Aids for Old-Age Disability, National Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, 100176, P.R. China.
Yan WangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, 999077, China.
Zengyong LiBeijing Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Technical Aids for Old-Age Disability, National Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, 100176, P.R. China. zyongli@sdu.edu.cn.
Pengyuan ZhengThe Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, 450052, P.R. China.
Liguo LiZhengzhou Health Vocational College, Henan, 450052, P.R. China.
Luya LiThe Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, 450052, P.R. China.

Funding

Fundamental Research Funds for Central Public Welfare Research Institutes 118009001000160001Henan Province Medical Key Technologies Research and Development Major Joint Construction Program SBGJ202001009Key Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province 2021C03109National Key Research and Development Program of China 2023YFC3603703National Natural Science Foundation of China 32271370National Natural Science Foundation of Hebei F2022203079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImpaired balance and gait in stroke survivors are associated with decreased functional independence. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of unilateral lower-limb exoskeleton robot-assisted overground gait training compared with conventional treatment and to explore the relationship between neuroplastic changes and motor function recovery in subacute stroke patients.

methodsIn this randomized, single-blind clinical trial, 40 patients with subacute stroke were recruited and randomly assigned to either a robot-assisted training (RT) group or a conventional training (CT) group. All outcome measures were assessed at the enrollment baseline (T0), 2nd week (T1) and 4th week (T2) of the treatment. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the change in the Berg balance scale (BBS) score from baseline to T2. The secondary measures included longitudinal changes in the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the lower limb (FMA-LE), modified Barthel index (mBI), functional ambulation category (FAC), and locomotion assessment with gait analysis. In addition, the cortical activation pattern related to robot-assisted training was measured before and after intervention via functional near-infrared spectroscopy.

resultsA total of 30 patients with complete data were included in this study. Clinical outcomes improved after 4 weeks of training in both groups, with significantly better BBS (F = 6.341, p = 0.018, partial η2 = 0.185), FMA-LE (F = 5.979, p = 0.021, partial η2 = 0.176), FAC (F = 7.692, p = 0.010, partial η2 = 0.216), and mBI scores (F = 7.255, p = 0.042, partial η2 = 0.140) in the RT group than in the CT group. Both groups showed significant improvement in gait speed and stride cadence on the locomotion assessment. Only the RT group presented a significantly increased stride length (F = 4.913, p = 0.015, partial η2 = 0.267), support phase (F = 5.335, p = 0.011, partial η2 = 0.283), and toe-off angle (F = 3.829, p = 0.035, partial η2 = 0.228) on the affected side after the intervention. The RT group also showed increased neural activity response over the ipsilesional motor area and bilateral prefrontal cortex during robot-assisted weight-shift and gait training following 4 weeks of treatment.

conclusionsOverground gait training with a unilateral exoskeleton robot showed improvements in balance and gait functions, resulting in better gait patterns and increased gait stability for stroke patients. The increased cortical response related to the ipsilesional motor areas and their related functional network is crucial in the rehabilitation of lower limb gait in post-stroke patients.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton DeviceLower ExtremityNeuronal PlasticityPostural BalanceRecovery of FunctionRoboticsStroke RehabilitationAdultAgedFemaleGaitGait Disorders, NeurologicHumansMaleMiddle AgedSingle-Blind MethodGait rehabilitationNeuroplasticityStrokeUnilateral lower-limb exoskeleton robot

Identifiers

PMID39639336
PMCPMC11622492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.