{"title":"Evaluating therapeutic effects of exoskeletons and FES in SCI: integrative review of the literature.","authors":"Rachel Y Kim, Olivia M Biller, M J Mulcahey","doi":"10.1038/s41393-025-01085-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Functional electrical stimulation and exoskeletons provide direct functional ability but may also have therapeutic effects that improve function when they are turned off or removed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This integrative review aimed to identify functional clinical outcome assessments used to assess therapeutic effects in rehabilitation technologies for persons with spinal cord injuries, to examine the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Common Data Elements recommendation level for SCI for each COA, and determine which COAs distinguish between recovery of function and function from compensation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search identified interventional SCI studies using FES and exoskeletons (n = 1006). Text screens resulted in a sample (n = 56) organized by level of evidence, COAs with their measurement properties, type of intervention with involved limbs, the NINDS CDE recommendation level, and if the COAs distinguished recovery from compensation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>56 articles met inclusion criteria. 31 studies involved exoskeletons, 23 studies involved FES, and 2 studies involved both FES and exoskeleton. Within those 56 articles, 38 COAs were identified across all studies, including different versions of the same COA as separate measures. Of these 38 COAs, 24 were PerfOs and 7 were PROs. The most used COAs did not differentiate recovery from compensation. However, 3 COAs were identified as able to discriminate recovery from compensation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Studies on FES and exoskeletons in SCI have precedent to examine therapeutic effects using a variety of functional COAs. Clinical trials in SCI would benefit from COAs with interval scales that assess therapeutic effects that differentiate between recovery and compensation.</p>","PeriodicalId":21976,"journal":{"name":"Spinal cord","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spinal cord","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-025-01085-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Functional electrical stimulation and exoskeletons provide direct functional ability but may also have therapeutic effects that improve function when they are turned off or removed.
Objective: This integrative review aimed to identify functional clinical outcome assessments used to assess therapeutic effects in rehabilitation technologies for persons with spinal cord injuries, to examine the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Common Data Elements recommendation level for SCI for each COA, and determine which COAs distinguish between recovery of function and function from compensation.
Methods: A literature search identified interventional SCI studies using FES and exoskeletons (n = 1006). Text screens resulted in a sample (n = 56) organized by level of evidence, COAs with their measurement properties, type of intervention with involved limbs, the NINDS CDE recommendation level, and if the COAs distinguished recovery from compensation.
Results: 56 articles met inclusion criteria. 31 studies involved exoskeletons, 23 studies involved FES, and 2 studies involved both FES and exoskeleton. Within those 56 articles, 38 COAs were identified across all studies, including different versions of the same COA as separate measures. Of these 38 COAs, 24 were PerfOs and 7 were PROs. The most used COAs did not differentiate recovery from compensation. However, 3 COAs were identified as able to discriminate recovery from compensation.
Conclusions: Studies on FES and exoskeletons in SCI have precedent to examine therapeutic effects using a variety of functional COAs. Clinical trials in SCI would benefit from COAs with interval scales that assess therapeutic effects that differentiate between recovery and compensation.
期刊介绍:
Spinal Cord is a specialised, international journal that has been publishing spinal cord related manuscripts since 1963. It appears monthly, online and in print, and accepts contributions on spinal cord anatomy, physiology, management of injury and disease, and the quality of life and life circumstances of people with a spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord is multi-disciplinary and publishes contributions across the entire spectrum of research ranging from basic science to applied clinical research. It focuses on high quality original research, systematic reviews and narrative reviews.
Spinal Cord''s sister journal Spinal Cord Series and Cases: Clinical Management in Spinal Cord Disorders publishes high quality case reports, small case series, pilot and retrospective studies perspectives, Pulse survey articles, Point-couterpoint articles, correspondences and book reviews. It specialises in material that addresses all aspects of life for persons with spinal cord injuries or disorders. For more information, please see the aims and scope of Spinal Cord Series and Cases.