SynthesisRevista de neurologia2026
[Gait Training Using Robotic Devices in Subjects With Stroke: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis].
Synthesis in Revista de neurologia, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGait training using robotic devices in stroke patients is a widely researched treatment modality. Therefore, there is a lot of heterogeneous information that needs to be synthesized, sorted, and classified. The aim of this work was to synthesize and analyze the scientific evidence on the application of robotic devices for gait training in people with stroke.
methodsThis overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Searches were performed in four electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library Plus. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effects of robotic devices in combination or not with another physiotherapy treatment on gait recovery in stroke patients were included.
resultsThirteen studies with a total of 101 RCTs were included. Data regarding the participants, outcome measures, training protocols and main results were extracted. The A Messurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review (AMSTAR-2) scale and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of certainty of evidence were applied. Only one study had a high certainty of evidence; while four had a moderate certainty, six were classified as having a low certainty and two had a critically low quality.
conclusionsRobotic gait training combined with physiotherapy improves walking speed after stroke, especially with end-effector devices. However, benefits do not reach clinically meaningful functional thresholds, and applicability is limited due to insufficient evidence, high costs, and limited accessibility. The PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021237915, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42021237915.
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.