ArticlePloS one2025
Can technology-based gait training result in relevant changes of ambulatory function in people with chronic, neurological diagnoses? A longitudinal, cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether a six-months technology-based gait training results in relevant changes of ambulatory function in a chronic stage after a neurological event. Further, changes in quality of life will be assessed as well as the willingness to pay for technology-based gait training.
designSingle-center, longitudinal cohort study.
settingOne outpatient center specialized in neurological rehabilitation.
participantsAdults with a chronic neurological diagnosis resulting in residual gait impairments.
interventionSix month of technology-based gait training (with Lokomat, Andago, or C-Mill) with a minimal number of trainings of 10 per month. PRIMARY & SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Walking performance assessed with the 10-meter walk test, 6-minute walk test and functional ambulation category; quality of life assessed with the EQ-5D-3L and WHODAS 2.0; predicted market share and willingness to pay assessed with a choice-based conjoint analysis survey and direct question.
results27 participants completed three months while 20 completed six months of training. Comparing variables at baseline (BL) and after three (M3) and six (M6) months of training, both the walking speed in the 10-meter walk test (BL: 0.46m/s, M3: 0.54 m/s M6: 0.57 m/s) and the distance covered in the 6-minute walk test (BL: 149m, M3: 155m, M6: 159m) showed improvements that were below the clinically relevant change. The quality of life did not indicate a change. The direct willingness to pay was at CHF 80 which resulted in an estimated market share of 55% based on the conjoint analysis.
conclusionThe observed, small changes in ambulatory function in patients with chronic, neurological impairments and the willingness to pay indicates the need to provide technology-based gait training in an outpatient setting.
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.