SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Effects of an exoskeleton robot on motor function in patients with spinal cord injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Can robot-assisted gait training improve walking and activity abilities in persons with spinal cord injury? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Optimal timing of surgical decompression for acute cervical spinal cord injury: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Trial
- Integrative Rehabilitation for War-Related Polytrauma: A Narrative Review of Multidimensional Strategies and Implementation Challenges.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Unveiling the Clinical Impact of Lower Limb Robotic Devices in Neurorehabilitation: An Umbrella Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of overground robotic exoskeletons in early inpatient rehabilitation for incomplete spinal cord injury: a systematic review protocol.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of exoskeleton robotic training on motor function in spinal cord injury (SCI) patients.
methodsWe systematically reviewed randomized and non-randomized controlled trials from five databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science) up to September 2025.
resultsA total of 13 trials with 247 participants were included. Results showed that exoskeleton robotic training significantly improved several motor function measures: the 6-min walk test (6-MWT) (0.75 [95% CI = 0.42, 1.08]), 10-m walk test (0.91 [95% CI = 0.49, 1.33]), Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI-II) (0.76 [95% CI = 0.36, 1.15]), timed up and go (TUG) test (- 1.05 [95% CI = - 1.50, - 0.60]), and lower extremity motor score (LEMS) (0.65 [95% CI = 0.40, 0.90]). Subgroup analysis indicated that improvements in walking speed were consistent regardless of injury duration (> 6 vs. < 6 months). In contrast, when stratified by cumulative training time, a non-linear dose-response relationship was observed, with the greatest improvement occurring at 1000-2000 min of training, while both lower and higher doses yielded attenuated effects. Although there was high heterogeneity in some measures (6-MWT, 10-MWT, WISCI-II, TUG), excluding individual studies did not significantly alter the findings, indicating stable results.
conclusionExoskeleton robotics significantly improves motor function in SCI patients, with walking function benefiting both within and beyond 6 months after injury, although the effects of ultra-early (< 3 months) versus early (3-6 months) intervention remain unclear, with maximal improvements observed at medium intensity (cumulative training duration of 1000-2000 min).
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.