ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Kinesiophobia and functional outcomes in inpatient post-stroke rehabilitation with and without robot-assisted gait therapy.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Stroke rehabilitation aims to improve functional independence, ambulation, motor recovery, and participation in daily life. Robot-assisted gait therapy (RAGT) is increasingly used as an adjunct to conventional rehabilitation; however, its additional contribution to functional outcomes and kinesiophobia remains uncertain. This study evaluated changes in activities of daily living, ambulation, motor recovery, and kinesiophobia in patients undergoing inpatient post-stroke rehabilitation and compared routine multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation with the same rehabilitation approach plus additional RAGT. Methods: In this non-randomized observational comparative study, 99 post-stroke patients completed a 4-week inpatient rehabilitation program. Patients receiving routine multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation, including a standardized physiotherapy program, were classified as the CRTx group, whereas those receiving the same rehabilitation approach with additional RAGT were classified as the CRTx+RAGT group. Functional independence was assessed using the Barthel Index, which was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included Functional Ambulation Classification (FAC), Brunnstrom stages, and Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). Assessments were performed at baseline and post-treatment. Within-group changes, between-group change scores, and adjusted linear regression models were analyzed. Results: Both groups showed significant within-group improvements in Brunnstrom stages, Barthel Index, FAC, and TSK scores after rehabilitation. In unadjusted change-score comparisons, improvements in the Barthel Index and FAC were greater in the CRTx+RAGT group, whereas changes in Brunnstrom stages and TSK scores did not differ significantly between groups. However, after adjustment for baseline score, stroke duration, education level, and baseline Brunnstrom lower-extremity stage, rehabilitation group was not independently associated with post-treatment Barthel Index, FAC, or TSK scores. Conclusion: A 4-week inpatient rehabilitation program was associated with improvements in motor recovery, functional independence, ambulation, and kinesiophobia in post-stroke patients. Although greater unadjusted improvements in Barthel Index and FAC were observed in the CRTx+RAGT group, these differences were not confirmed in adjusted analyses. The independent contribution of RAGT should therefore be interpreted cautiously and investigated further in randomized, adequately powered, and dose-matched studies.
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.