Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37794474›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2023

Feasibility and outcomes of supplemental gait training by robotic and conventional means in acute stroke rehabilitation.

Mukul Talaty, Alberto Esquenazi

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Robot-assisted gait training in stroke.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mukul TalatyGait and Motion Analysis Laboratory, MossRehab, Elkins Park, PA, 19027, USA. mukul.talaty@jefferson.edu.
Alberto EsquenaziGait and Motion Analysis Laboratory, MossRehab, Elkins Park, PA, 19027, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPracticality of implementation and dosing of supplemental gait training in an acute stroke inpatient rehabilitation setting are not well studied but can have positive impact on outcomes.

objectivesTo determine the feasibility of early, intense supplemental gait training in inpatient stroke rehabilitation, compare functional outcomes and the specific mode of delivery. DESIGN AND

settingAssessor blinded, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility.

participantsThirty acute post-stroke patients with unilateral hemiparesis (≥ 18 years of age with a lower limb MAS ≤ 3).

interventionLokomat® or conventional gait training (CGT) in addition to standard mandated therapy time.

main outcome measuresNumber of therapy sessions; adverse events; functional independence measure (FIM motor); functional ambulation category (FAC); passive range of motion (PROM); modified Ashworth scale (MAS); 5 times sit-to-stand (5x-STS); 10-m walk test (10MWT); 2-min walk test (2MWT) were assessed before (pre) and after training (post).

resultsThe desired supplemental therapy was implemented during normal care delivery hours and the patients generally tolerated the sessions well. Both groups improved markedly on several measures; the CGT group obtained nearly 45% more supplemental sessions (12.8) than the Lokomat® group (8.9). Both groups showed greater FIM improvement scores (discharge - admission) than those from a reference group receiving no supplemental therapy. An overarching statistical comparison between methods was skewed towards a differential benefit (but not significant) in the Lokomat® group with medium effect sizes. By observation, the robotic group completed a greater number of steps, on average. These results provide some evidence for Lokomat® being a more efficient tool for gait retraining by providing a more optimal therapy "dose".

conclusionsWith careful planning, supplemental therapy was possible with minimal intrusion to schedules and was well tolerated. Participants showed meaningful functional improvement with relatively little supplemental therapy over a relatively short time in study.

Indexed as

Gait Disorders, NeurologicRobotic Surgical ProceduresStrokeStroke RehabilitationExercise TherapyFeasibility StudiesGaitHumansProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeGaitInpatient Rehabilitation FacilityLokomat®Stroke

Identifiers

PMID37794474
PMCPMC10552424

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.