ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Early end-effector-based gait training in non-ambulatory patients with visuospatial neglect after subacute stroke.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Early gait training plays a critical role in stroke rehabilitation, as reflected in relevant guidelines. However, patients with visuospatial neglect-a factor that negatively impacts gait recovery-have traditionally been excluded from robot-assisted gait training studies. To address this issue, our study examined the effects of end-effector-based gait training on subacute stroke patients with visuospatial neglect. Methods: A total of 43 patients were randomized in a controlled, assessor-blinded study and assigned either to end-effector-based gait training plus standard physical therapy or early verticalization with a standing frame plus standard physical therapy. All patients underwent nine training sessions over 2 weeks. We analyzed the primary outcome measure, the Functional Ambulation Category, using an ordinal regression model, reporting results for both the intention-to-treat population and the per-protocol sample, and also assessed trunk stability and balance as secondary outcomes. Results: Neither the intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.20 [0.30-4.78]) nor the per-protocol analysis (odds ratio: 4.08 [0.80-20.87]) revealed any significant overall superiority of gait training compared to standing training. However, the per-protocol analysis showed a promising pattern: Severely affected patients were more likely to improve their walking ability after gait training depending on their baseline Functional Ambulation Category score. Gait training also led to greater improvements in trunk stability and balance than standing training did. Conclusion: These results suggest that early adjunctive end-effector-based gait training could benefit a subgroup of severely affected, non-ambulatory, subacute stroke patients with visuospatial neglect. Clinical trial registration: DRKS00021654, www.drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00021654.
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.