ReviewSpinal cord2025
Evaluating therapeutic effects of exoskeletons and FES in SCI: integrative review of the literature.
Review in Spinal cord, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bibliometric analysis of research on spinal cord injury and functional electrical stimulation: trends and frontiers.Spinal cord · 2026Article
- Toward Intelligent Rehabilitation Program Management: A System-Level Review of AI Architectures.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunctional electrical stimulation and exoskeletons provide direct functional ability but may also have therapeutic effects that improve function when they are turned off or removed.
objectiveThis integrative review aimed to identify functional clinical outcome assessments used to assess therapeutic effects in rehabilitation technologies for persons with spinal cord injuries, to examine the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Common Data Elements recommendation level for SCI for each COA, and determine which COAs distinguish between recovery of function and function from compensation.
methodsA literature search identified interventional SCI studies using FES and exoskeletons (n = 1006). Text screens resulted in a sample (n = 56) organized by level of evidence, COAs with their measurement properties, type of intervention with involved limbs, the NINDS CDE recommendation level, and if the COAs distinguished recovery from compensation.
results56 articles met inclusion criteria. 31 studies involved exoskeletons, 23 studies involved FES, and 2 studies involved both FES and exoskeleton. Within those 56 articles, 38 COAs were identified across all studies, including different versions of the same COA as separate measures. Of these 38 COAs, 24 were PerfOs and 7 were PROs. The most used COAs did not differentiate recovery from compensation. However, 3 COAs were identified as able to discriminate recovery from compensation.
conclusionsStudies on FES and exoskeletons in SCI have precedent to examine therapeutic effects using a variety of functional COAs. Clinical trials in SCI would benefit from COAs with interval scales that assess therapeutic effects that differentiate between recovery and compensation.
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.