ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2026
Exoskeletal-Assisted Training in Veterans With Chronic Stroke: A Pilot Study.
Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the safety and feasibility of using a robotically powered exoskeleton in outpatient stroke survivors (>6mo). Treatment effect and functional outcome data were explored. Design: Safety and feasibility pilot study. Setting: Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Participants: Convenience sample of 10 stroke survivors (N=10) who were independent ambulators but had mild-moderate limitations. Interventions: Standard of care (SOC) rehabilitation and SOC plus a robotic exoskeleton (SOC+Exo). Both groups received 1 hour of outpatient gait, transfer, and mobility training, 3 times per week for 12 weeks. The SOC+Exo group performed all SOC training activities while wearing the Keeogo Dermoskeleton (KExo). Main Outcome Measures: Safety was determined by adverse events (AEs), and feasibility by retention rate, adherence, participants' subjective satisfaction across 8 KExo use aspects, and trainers' subjective effort on 5 KExo donning/doffing tasks. Exploratory outcomes included the 5 Times Sit-to-Stand Test (5 × STS), distance and timed walking tests, stair climbing test, and step length during gait. Results: Twenty-two participants were screened; 16 were eligible and enrolled in the protocol. Four were randomized to SOC rehabilitation and 12 to the SOC+Exo intervention. Early study termination occurred in 1 SOC (noncompliance) and 5 SOC+Exo participants (because of time commitment or noncompliance). Two study-related AEs occurred. Both AEs were resolved, and the participants continued in the protocol. Ten (3 SOC; 7 SOC+Exo) of the initial 16 participants completed the study, demonstrating a 63% retention rate. The 10 retained participants demonstrated a 100% adherence rate. Most participants were satisfied with KExo assistance. Trainers reported providing only supervision when using the device. Nonparametric analysis suggests improvement (pre-post) in the SOC+Exo group without the device for 5 × STS (mean ± SD, -20.3±14.2s; Conclusions: Use of a robotically powered exoskeleton to augment SOC outpatient stroke rehabilitation was safe and feasible, and the protocol was well tolerated by participants and trainers. The effects of SOC+Exo training on the exploratory outcomes appear promising and warrant further investigation for efficacy in a more rigorous randomized controlled trial.
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.