Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Overground robotic exoskeleton vs conventional therapy in inpatient stroke rehabilitation: results from a pragmatic, multicentre implementation programme.
Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05659121 (Evaluating Evidence-based and Sustainable Application of Robotic Exoskeletons in Rehabilitation for Those With Impaired Mobility), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Evaluating Evidence-based and Sustainable Application of Robotic Exoskeletons in Rehabilitation for Those With Impaired Mobility
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Towards Clinical Trial Readiness: Optimization of a Parallel Robot for Lower Limb Rehabilitation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Early brain-heart health manager-led multidimensional rehabilitation improves functional and psychosocial outcomes in hemorrhagic stroke: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the reported efficacy of overground robotic exoskeleton (ORE) for rehabilitation of mobility post-stroke, its effectiveness in real-world practice is still debated. We analysed prospectively collected data from Improving Mobility Via Exoskeleton (IMOVE), a multicentre clinical implementation programme of ORE enrolling participants with various neurological conditions and were given options to choose between 12 sessions of ORE or conventional therapy (control).
methodsThis is analysis of participants under IMOVE who fulfilled the following criteria (i) primary diagnosis was stroke (ischemic, hemorrhagic; first or recurrent), (ii) onset of stroke was within 9 months and (iii) the intervention was during inpatient stay. They should also fulfill the general IMOVE inclusion and exclusion criteria which were resembling general clinical and manufacturing criteria of ORE. Outcome measures included Functional Ambulatory Category (FAC), Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI), Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Clinical Outcome Variable Scale (COVS), measured immediately before and after the 12 sessions of therapy, and mean distance walked per session.
resultsOf 149 participants (105 OREs and 44 controls), both groups improved significantly in motor outcomes with no significant between-group differences. Participants with baseline FAC 1 had significantly greater improvement in motor sub-score of FIM (FIM-motor) compared to controls (mean difference 8.4, 95% CI 0.65-16.07, η
conclusionIn a pragmatic setting, use of ORE for gait training enabled patients with lower ambulatory capacity to walk longer distances during therapy sessions. Patients who required continuous assistance during ambulation (FAC 1) had significantly better gains in FIM-motor compared to conventional therapy, suggesting possible benefit of ORE for this group.
trial registrationThe trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05659121) on April 14, 2022.
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.