Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39840276›Full record

ArticleHRB open research2024

Exoskeleton Training for Spinal Cord Injury Neuropathic Pain (ExSCIP): Protocol for a Phase 2 Feasibility Randomised Trial.

Conor White, Orlaith Doherty, Eimear Smith, Catherine Blake, Nanna Brix Finnerup, Nathan Kirwan, Mark Pollock, Olive Lennon

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HRB open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06463418 (Exoskeleton Training for Spinal Cord Injury Neuropathic Pain), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT06463418 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Exoskeleton Training for Spinal Cord Injury Neuropathic Pain (ExSCIP): Protocol for a Phase 2 Feasibility Randomised Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College DublinRan2024 to 2026Enrolled40ConditionsTraumatic Spinal Cord InjuryArmsEkoskeleton (Intervention), Relaxation (Comparator)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

8 authors.

Conor WhiteUCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1524-3673
Orlaith DohertyUCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland.
Eimear SmithNational Rehabilitation Hospital, Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3739-0749
Catherine BlakeUCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0600-629X
Nanna Brix FinnerupAarhus University Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus, Central Denmark Region, Denmark.
Nathan KirwanHelpful Steps Charity, Cork, Ireland.
Mark PollockMark Pollock Trust, Dublin, Ireland.
Olive LennonUCD School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7005-3616

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Following Spinal Cord Injury (SCI), 53% of people develop neuropathic pain (NP). NP can be more debilitating than other consequences of SCI, and a persistent health issue. Pharmacotherapies are commonly recommended for NP management in SCI, although severe pain often remains refractory to these treatments in many sufferers. Furthermore, poor medication adherence exists, stemming from unacceptable side-effects and fear of dependency.Sensorimotor stimulation using active walking with robotic assistance has not been well studied in NP after SCI, despite convincing locomotor-based pre-clinical studies, identifying prevention and reversal of NP.Our primary aim is to assess the impact of exoskeleton-based walking on NP intensity and interference after SCI and examine feasibility outcomes for progression to a definitive trial. Methods: This is a phase 2 single-blinded, randomised feasibility study. It will test the feasibility and acceptability of exoskeleton-based walking 3 times per week for 12 weeks (intervention), as a mechanistic-based intervention for NP after SCI. The comparator will be an equally dosed, blended relaxation programme devoid of motor imagery prompts. 40 participants with moderate-to-severe NP post SCI will be recruited and randomised to intervention and comparator groups.The primary outcomes are feasibility outcomes for progression to definitive trial which include recruitment and retention rates, adverse events and acceptability of the intervention.Secondary outcomes explore changes in NP intensity and interference as measured by the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain Basic Data Set 3.0 (ISCIPBDS) at baseline, post-intervention (week 13) and at 6-month follow-up. Conclusions: There is a need to explore non-pharmacological management of NP after SCI. The findings of this feasibility trial will inform the development of a future multicentre, international RCT. Trial Registration: NCT06463418, 08/07/2024, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06463418.

Indexed as

AdultNeuropathic PainNeurorehabilitationRoboticsSpinal Cord Injuries

Identifiers

PMID39840276
PMCPMC11748425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.