步态康复中选择初始体重支撑水平的临床适应症和方案考虑因素:系统综述。

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1186/s12984-024-01389-8
Sanne Ettema, Geertje H Pennink, Tom J W Buurke, Sina David, Coen A M van Bennekom, Han Houdijk
{"title":"步态康复中选择初始体重支撑水平的临床适应症和方案考虑因素:系统综述。","authors":"Sanne Ettema, Geertje H Pennink, Tom J W Buurke, Sina David, Coen A M van Bennekom, Han Houdijk","doi":"10.1186/s12984-024-01389-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Body weight support (BWS) training devices are frequently used to improve gait in individuals with neurological impairments, but guidance in selecting an appropriate level of BWS is limited. Here, we aim to describe the initial BWS levels used during gait training, the rationale for this selection and the clinical goals aligned with BWS training for different diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, including terms related to the population (individuals with neurological disorders), intervention (BWS training) and outcome (gait). Information on patient characteristics, type of BWS device, BWS level and training goals was extracted from the included articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three articles were included, which described outcomes using frame-based (stationary or mobile) and unidirectional ceiling-mounted devices on four diagnoses (multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI)). The BWS levels were highest for individuals with MS (median: 75%, IQR: 6%), followed by SCI (median: 40%, IQR: 35%), stroke (median: 30%, IQR: 4.75%) and TBI (median: 15%, IQR: 0%). The included studies reported eleven different training goals. Reported BWS levels ranged between 30 and 75% for most of the training goals, without a clear relationship between BWS level, diagnosis, training goal and rationale for BWS selection. Training goals were achieved in all included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Initial BWS levels differ considerably between studies included in this review. The underlying rationale for these differences was not clearly motivated in the included studies. Variation in study designs and populations does not allow to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of BWS levels. Hence, it remains difficult to formulate guidelines on optimal BWS settings for different diagnoses, BWS devices and training goals. Further efforts are required to establish clinical guidelines and to experimentally investigate which initial BWS levels are optimal for specific diagnoses and training goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":16384,"journal":{"name":"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11157893/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical indications and protocol considerations for selecting initial body weight support levels in gait rehabilitation: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Sanne Ettema, Geertje H Pennink, Tom J W Buurke, Sina David, Coen A M van Bennekom, Han Houdijk\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12984-024-01389-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Body weight support (BWS) training devices are frequently used to improve gait in individuals with neurological impairments, but guidance in selecting an appropriate level of BWS is limited. Here, we aim to describe the initial BWS levels used during gait training, the rationale for this selection and the clinical goals aligned with BWS training for different diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, including terms related to the population (individuals with neurological disorders), intervention (BWS training) and outcome (gait). Information on patient characteristics, type of BWS device, BWS level and training goals was extracted from the included articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three articles were included, which described outcomes using frame-based (stationary or mobile) and unidirectional ceiling-mounted devices on four diagnoses (multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI)). The BWS levels were highest for individuals with MS (median: 75%, IQR: 6%), followed by SCI (median: 40%, IQR: 35%), stroke (median: 30%, IQR: 4.75%) and TBI (median: 15%, IQR: 0%). The included studies reported eleven different training goals. Reported BWS levels ranged between 30 and 75% for most of the training goals, without a clear relationship between BWS level, diagnosis, training goal and rationale for BWS selection. Training goals were achieved in all included studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Initial BWS levels differ considerably between studies included in this review. The underlying rationale for these differences was not clearly motivated in the included studies. Variation in study designs and populations does not allow to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of BWS levels. Hence, it remains difficult to formulate guidelines on optimal BWS settings for different diagnoses, BWS devices and training goals. Further efforts are required to establish clinical guidelines and to experimentally investigate which initial BWS levels are optimal for specific diagnoses and training goals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11157893/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-024-01389-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-024-01389-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:体重支撑(BWS)训练装置常用于改善神经障碍患者的步态,但在选择合适的体重支撑水平方面指导有限。在此,我们旨在描述步态训练过程中使用的初始体重支撑水平、选择该水平的理由以及针对不同诊断选择体重支撑训练的临床目标:在 PubMed、Embase 和 Web of Science 中进行了系统性文献检索,包括与人群(神经系统疾病患者)、干预(BWS 训练)和结果(步态)相关的术语。从纳入的文章中提取了有关患者特征、BWS设备类型、BWS水平和训练目标的信息:结果:共收录了 33 篇文章,这些文章介绍了基于框架(固定式或移动式)和单向天花板安装式设备对四种诊断(多发性硬化症(MS)、脊髓损伤(SCI)、中风、创伤性脑损伤(TBI))的治疗效果。多发性硬化症患者的 BWS 水平最高(中位数:75%,IQR:6%),其次是 SCI(中位数:40%,IQR:35%)、中风(中位数:30%,IQR:4.75%)和 TBI(中位数:15%,IQR:0%)。纳入的研究报告了 11 种不同的训练目标。对于大多数训练目标,所报告的 BWS 水平介于 30% 和 75% 之间,BWS 水平、诊断、训练目标和 BWS 选择理由之间没有明确的关系。所有纳入的研究都实现了训练目标:本综述所纳入的各项研究的初始 BWS 水平差异很大。结论:不同研究的初始 BWS 水平有很大差异,纳入的研究没有明确说明这些差异的根本原因。研究设计和研究对象的不同也无法就 BWS 水平的有效性得出结论。因此,要针对不同的诊断、BWS 设备和训练目标制定最佳 BWS 设置指南仍有困难。我们需要进一步努力制定临床指南,并通过实验研究对于特定诊断和训练目标而言,哪种初始 BWS 水平是最佳的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Clinical indications and protocol considerations for selecting initial body weight support levels in gait rehabilitation: a systematic review.

Background: Body weight support (BWS) training devices are frequently used to improve gait in individuals with neurological impairments, but guidance in selecting an appropriate level of BWS is limited. Here, we aim to describe the initial BWS levels used during gait training, the rationale for this selection and the clinical goals aligned with BWS training for different diagnoses.

Method: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, including terms related to the population (individuals with neurological disorders), intervention (BWS training) and outcome (gait). Information on patient characteristics, type of BWS device, BWS level and training goals was extracted from the included articles.

Results: Thirty-three articles were included, which described outcomes using frame-based (stationary or mobile) and unidirectional ceiling-mounted devices on four diagnoses (multiple sclerosis (MS), spinal cord injury (SCI), stroke, traumatic brain injury (TBI)). The BWS levels were highest for individuals with MS (median: 75%, IQR: 6%), followed by SCI (median: 40%, IQR: 35%), stroke (median: 30%, IQR: 4.75%) and TBI (median: 15%, IQR: 0%). The included studies reported eleven different training goals. Reported BWS levels ranged between 30 and 75% for most of the training goals, without a clear relationship between BWS level, diagnosis, training goal and rationale for BWS selection. Training goals were achieved in all included studies.

Conclusion: Initial BWS levels differ considerably between studies included in this review. The underlying rationale for these differences was not clearly motivated in the included studies. Variation in study designs and populations does not allow to draw a conclusion on the effectiveness of BWS levels. Hence, it remains difficult to formulate guidelines on optimal BWS settings for different diagnoses, BWS devices and training goals. Further efforts are required to establish clinical guidelines and to experimentally investigate which initial BWS levels are optimal for specific diagnoses and training goals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 工程技术-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
3.90%
发文量
122
审稿时长
24 months
期刊介绍: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation considers manuscripts on all aspects of research that result from cross-fertilization of the fields of neuroscience, biomedical engineering, and physical medicine & rehabilitation.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of synergy extrapolation and static optimization for estimating multiple unmeasured muscle activations during walking. Immersive virtual reality for learning exoskeleton-like virtual walking: a feasibility study. Instrumented assessment of lower and upper motor neuron signs in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using robotic manipulation: an explorative study. Rest the brain to learn new gait patterns after stroke. Effects of virtual reality rehabilitation after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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