Trial reportFrontiers in neurology2026
Robot-assisted gait training in people with subacute and chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Frontiers in neurology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The effectiveness of robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) after stroke remains uncertain, particularly regarding its role across different recovery stages. This single-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial examined whether a 4-week inpatient program of end-effector-based RAGT plus conventional physiotherapy (RAGT+CPT) improved walking ability and basic activities of daily living (ADL) more than conventional physiotherapy alone (CPT), and whether effects differed by stroke phase. Methods: One hundred people with subacute (>7 days to ≤6 months) or chronic (>6 months) stroke were stratified by stroke phase and randomly allocated (1:1) to RAGT+CPT or CPT. Interventions were delivered four times weekly for 4 weeks (45-50 min RAGT/CPT + 25 min CPT). Primary outcomes were walking ability (Functional Ambulation Categories) and basic ADL (Barthel Index). Secondary outcomes included walking speed and distance, functional mobility, concerns about falling, fatigue, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), intervention acceptability, and RAGT gait parameters. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and follow-up (Week 12). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Results: Median (range) baseline FAC was 4 (RAGT+CPT: 0-4; CPT: 1-4) in the subacute groups and 3 (RAGT+CPT: 0-4; CPT: 1-4) in the chronic groups. Cumulative link mixed models demonstrated significant improvements over time in walking ability and basic ADL, with no evidence of differential treatment effects between RAGT+CPT and CPT. Improvements in walking endurance were greater in subacute- than chronic-phase participants. Additional analyses adjusting for baseline ambulatory function did not materially alter the intervention-related conclusions. Self-perceived HRQoL assessed with the EQ-5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale improved significantly more following RAGT+CPT than CPT, whereas most other secondary outcomes were comparable between interventions. No study-related serious adverse events occurred. Discussion: This trial found no clear superiority of RAGT+CPT over CPT for walking ability or basic ADL. Both interventions produced meaningful improvements over time across both stroke phases, supporting intensive inpatient rehabilitation beyond the early recovery phase. Although objective functional outcomes were comparable between interventions, RAGT+CPT was associated with greater improvement in self-perceived HRQoL. Overall, RAGT may be considered a complementary rehabilitation approach rather than a universally superior alternative to conventional physiotherapy. Clinical trial registration: https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00029910/details, identifier DRKS00029910.
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.