↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
48 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
173 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
456 Mendeley
Title
Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006185.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Mehrholz, Simone Thomas, Cordula Werner, Joachim Kugler, Marcus Pohl, Bernhard Elsner

Abstract

Electromechanical- and robotic-assisted gait-training devices are used in rehabilitation and might help to improve walking after stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. To investigate the effects of automated electromechanical- and robotic-assisted gait-training devices for improving walking after stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 9 August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE in Ovid (1950 to 15 August 2016), Embase (1980 to 15 August 2016), CINAHL (1982 to 15 August 2016), AMED (1985 to 15 August 2016), Web of Science (1899 to 16 August 2016), SPORTDiscus (1949 to 15 September 2012), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (searched 16 August 2016), and the engineering databases COMPENDEX (1972 to 16 November 2012) and Inspec (1969 to 26 August 2016). We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted authors in an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. We included all randomised controlled trials and randomised controlled cross-over trials in people over the age of 18 years diagnosed with stroke of any severity, at any stage, in any setting, evaluating electromechanical- and robotic-assisted gait training versus normal care. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants walking independently at follow-up. We included 36 trials involving 1472 participants in this review update. Electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy increased the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (odds ratio (random effects) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 2.71; P < 0.001; I² = 8%; moderate-quality evidence) but did not significantly increase walking velocity (mean difference (MD) 0.04 m/s, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.09; P = 0.08; I² = 65%; low-quality evidence) or walking capacity (MD 5.84 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI -16.73 to 28.40; P = 0.61; I² = 53%; very low-quality evidence). The results must be interpreted with caution because 1) some trials investigated people who were independent in walking at the start of the study, 2) we found variations between the trials with respect to devices used and duration and frequency of treatment, and 3) some trials included devices with functional electrical stimulation. Our planned subgroup analysis suggested that people in the acute phase may benefit, but people in the chronic phase may not benefit from electromechanical-assisted gait training. Post hoc analysis showed that people who are non-ambulatory at intervention onset may benefit, but ambulatory people may not benefit from this type of training. Post hoc analysis showed no differences between the types of devices used in studies regarding ability to walk, but significant differences were found between devices in terms of walking velocity. People who receive electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy after stroke are more likely to achieve independent walking than people who receive gait training without these devices. We concluded that seven patients need to be treated to prevent one dependency in walking. Specifically, people in the first three months after stroke and those who are not able to walk seem to benefit most from this type of intervention. The role of the type of device is still not clear. Further research should consist of large definitive pragmatic phase III trials undertaken to address specific questions about the most effective frequency and duration of electromechanical-assisted gait training as well as how long any benefit may last.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 456 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 453 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 81 18%
Researcher 60 13%
Student > Bachelor 60 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 8%
Other 32 7%
Other 100 22%
Unknown 86 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 86 19%
Engineering 50 11%
Neuroscience 36 8%
Sports and Recreations 15 3%
Other 64 14%
Unknown 109 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2020.
All research outputs
#633,245
of 17,590,133 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,572
of 11,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,311
of 273,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,590,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.