ArticleMaedica2025
Robotic Rehabilitation for Gait Imbalance in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS): a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Maedica, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To estimate the pooled effect of robotic rehabilitation on gait in subjects with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, IEEE and Web of Science databases on October 1 st 2022, without any time or language limitation. Also, we investigated the grey literature, including conference abstract and references of references, to identify potentially relevant articles. The primary outcomes were the six-minute walking test (6MWT) and Timed Up and Go (TUG). The risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2). Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effects model as the heterogeneity between study results (I2) was less than 50%. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated as the effect size for study outcomes. Results: Our systematic search retrieved 6878 studies and, after deleting duplicate results, 5019 articles remained. Two researchers screened the titles and abstracts, with 4942 studies remaining for further screening. After full-text assessment, 12 studies were included for meta-analysis, most of which were conducted in the USA and Italy and were published between 2007 and 2022. The mean age of participants in the selected studies ranged between 46-55 years and the mean expanded disability status scale (EDSS) between 5 and 6.5. The SMD of 6MWT (AFTER-BEFORE) was 0.22 (95% CI -0.01-0.45) (I 2 =0%, P=0.90). The SMD of TUG (AFTER-BEFORE) was -0.29 (95% CI -0.56, -0.02) (I 2 =0%, P=0.70). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that robotic rehabilitation was effective for gait rehabilitation in patients with MS.
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.