SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Robot-assisted gait training for balance, mobility, and gait in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) on balance, functional mobility, walking endurance, and spatiotemporal gait parameters in patients with Parkinson's disease. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, trial-registry sources, and supplementary search sources were searched from inception to the final search date. The protocol was retrospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/njp39/) during manuscript revision. Randomized controlled trials comparing RAGT with conventional rehabilitation, treadmill training, balance training, medication, or usual care were included. In total, two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Hedges' g and, in parallel, post-intervention mean differences (MDs) in the original clinical units were calculated using random-effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity, publication-bias, and GRADE analyses were conducted where data permitted; meta-regression analyses were treated as exploratory because each outcome included fewer than 10 studies and are reported only in the Supplementary Appendix. Results: A total of 12 RCTs were included. RAGT was associated with better BBS scores (Hedges' g = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.62; MD = 3.49 points, 95% CI: 1.85 to 5.12), shorter TUG time (Hedges' g = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.16; MD = -1.82 s, 95% CI: -2.67 to -0.96), and a longer 6MWD (Hedges' g = 2.21, 95% CI: 0.53 to 3.90; MD = 35.82 m, 95% CI: -0.94 to 72.58). Cadence increased by 4.14 steps/min (95% CI: 1.83 to 6.46), and step length increased by 5.70 cm (95% CI: 0.25 to 11.15). However, BBS, 6MWD, and step length showed substantial heterogeneity, and Egger's tests suggested possible small-study effects or publication bias for several outcomes. Conclusion: RAGT may be a promising adjunct to rehabilitation for PD, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain, and the true effects may be smaller than the pooled estimates. Current evidence should be interpreted cautiously because of small trials, heterogeneous devices and comparators, underreported safety outcomes, risk of bias, and possible publication bias. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/njp39/, identifier (njp39).
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.