SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Robot-assisted rehabilitation for post-stroke balance and postural control: an umbrella review and evidence map of systematic reviews.
Synthesis 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Balance and postural-control impairments are common after stroke and can restrict mobility and independence, but the effectiveness of robot-assisted rehabilitation for these outcomes remains uncertain. This umbrella review aimed to summarize and critically appraise evidence from systematic reviews on robot-assisted rehabilitation for balance function and postural control after stroke. Methods: This umbrella review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261426090). PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 30, 2026. Eligible publications were systematic reviews evaluating robot-assisted rehabilitation in adults after stroke and reporting at least one balance- or postural-control-related outcome. Methodological quality, reporting completeness, risk of bias, certainty of evidence, and primary-study overlap were assessed using AMSTAR-2, PRISMA 2020, ROBIS, GRADE, and corrected covered area (CCA), respectively. Results: Twelve systematic reviews were included. The included reviews evaluated robot-assisted gait training, Lokomat, overground robot-assisted gait training, end-effector robots, exoskeleton robots, lower-limb rehabilitation robots, and mixed robotic devices. The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) was the most frequently reported outcome. Several reviews suggested favorable effects of robot-assisted rehabilitation on BBS, whereas findings for Timed Up and Go, Fugl-Meyer balance, Rivermead Mobility Index, and instrumented postural-control outcomes were less consistent. AMSTAR-2 rated 10 reviews as low quality and two as critically low quality. ROBIS indicated one review with high overall risk of bias and the remaining reviews with unclear risk of bias. The certainty of evidence for major outcomes was generally low or very low. Primary-study overlap was high for overall balance-related evidence (CCA = 12.06%), BBS evidence (CCA = 11.61%), and TUG/TUGT evidence (CCA = 11.76%). Conclusion: Robot-assisted rehabilitation may improve selected balance-related outcomes after stroke, particularly BBS. However, current evidence is limited by low methodological quality, unclear or high risk of bias, low or very low certainty, heterogeneity, and primary-study overlap. Robot-assisted rehabilitation should be considered a potential adjunct to comprehensive post-stroke rehabilitation, and higher-quality evidence is needed to clarify its effects on balance and postural control. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261426090, PROSPERO (CRD420261426090).
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.