Robot-Assisted Gait Training in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine-ARM Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-28 DOI:10.5535/arm.230039
Jong Mi Park, Yong Wook Kim, Su Ji Lee, Ji Cheol Shin
{"title":"Robot-Assisted Gait Training in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Jong Mi Park, Yong Wook Kim, Su Ji Lee, Ji Cheol Shin","doi":"10.5535/arm.230039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation emphasizes locomotion. Robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) is widely used in clinical settings because of its benefits; however, its efficacy remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of RAGT in patients with SCI. We searched international and domestic databases for articles published until April 18, 2024. The meta-analysis employed a random effects model to determine the effect size as either mean difference (MD) or standardized MD (SMD). Evidence quality was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Twenty-three studies with a total of 690 participants were included in the final analysis. The overall pooled effect size for improvement in activities of daily living was 0.24, with SMD (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.04-0.43; GRADE: high) favoring RAGT over conventional rehabilitation. Muscular strength (MD, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.02-0.44; GRADE: high), walking index for SCI (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.07-0.55; GRADE: moderate) and 6 min walk test distance (MD, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14-0.63; GRADE: moderate) showed significant improvement in the robot group. Subgroup analysis revealed that subacute patients and intervention periods >2 months were more effective. This meta-analysis revealed that RAGT significantly improved activities of daily living, muscular strength, and walking abilities. Additional studies are needed to identify the optimal treatment protocol and specific patient groups for which the protocol is most effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":47738,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine-ARM","volume":"48 3","pages":"171-191"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11217760/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine-ARM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.230039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Spinal cord injury (SCI) rehabilitation emphasizes locomotion. Robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) is widely used in clinical settings because of its benefits; however, its efficacy remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of RAGT in patients with SCI. We searched international and domestic databases for articles published until April 18, 2024. The meta-analysis employed a random effects model to determine the effect size as either mean difference (MD) or standardized MD (SMD). Evidence quality was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Twenty-three studies with a total of 690 participants were included in the final analysis. The overall pooled effect size for improvement in activities of daily living was 0.24, with SMD (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.04-0.43; GRADE: high) favoring RAGT over conventional rehabilitation. Muscular strength (MD, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.02-0.44; GRADE: high), walking index for SCI (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.07-0.55; GRADE: moderate) and 6 min walk test distance (MD, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14-0.63; GRADE: moderate) showed significant improvement in the robot group. Subgroup analysis revealed that subacute patients and intervention periods >2 months were more effective. This meta-analysis revealed that RAGT significantly improved activities of daily living, muscular strength, and walking abilities. Additional studies are needed to identify the optimal treatment protocol and specific patient groups for which the protocol is most effective.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脊髓损伤患者的机器人辅助步态训练:随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析》。
脊髓损伤(SCI)康复强调运动。机器人辅助步态训练(RAGT)因其优点而被广泛应用于临床,但其疗效仍存在争议。我们进行了一项系统综述和荟萃分析,以研究机器人辅助步态训练对 SCI 患者的疗效。我们检索了国际和国内数据库中截至 2024 年 4 月 18 日发表的文章。荟萃分析采用随机效应模型,以平均差(MD)或标准化MD(SMD)确定效应大小。证据质量采用建议评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)进行评估。最终分析纳入了 23 项研究,共有 690 名参与者。日常生活活动改善的总体效应大小为 0.24,SMD(95% 置信区间[95% CI],0.04-0.43;GRADE:高)显示 RAGT 比传统康复更有优势。机器人组的肌肉力量(MD,0.23;95% CI,0.02-0.44;GRADE:高)、SCI步行指数(MD,0.31;95% CI,0.07-0.55;GRADE:中)和6分钟步行测试距离(MD,0.38;95% CI,0.14-0.63;GRADE:中)均有显著改善。亚组分析表明,亚急性患者和干预期大于 2 个月的患者更有效。这项荟萃分析显示,RAGT 能显著改善日常生活活动、肌肉力量和行走能力。还需要进行更多的研究,以确定最佳治疗方案以及该方案最有效的特定患者群体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
32
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Factors Affecting Life Satisfaction Among People With Physical Disabilities During COVID-19: Observational Evidence from a Korean Cohort Study. Motor Function Measurement in Children: Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM). Coexistence of Non-Lower Body Mass Index and Exercise Habits Reduce Readmission in Older Patients With Heart Failure. Change in Plantar Pressure and Plain Radiography in Pediatric Flexible Flatfoot: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Cross-Cultural Translation and Validation of the Thai Version of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA-TH).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1