Robotic-assisted gait training for spinal cord injury neuropathic pain: A systematic review.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Conor White, Samantha Klus, Wing Hai Ho, Lily Barrett, Orlaith Doherty, Olive Lennon
{"title":"Robotic-assisted gait training for spinal cord injury neuropathic pain: A systematic review.","authors":"Conor White, Samantha Klus, Wing Hai Ho, Lily Barrett, Orlaith Doherty, Olive Lennon","doi":"10.1080/10790268.2025.2503049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Neuropathic pain (NP), can be a debilitating consequence of spinal cord injury. Robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) is an effective rehabilitation tool, but emerging evidence suggests it may prove an effective treatment for NP post-SCI.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aims to synthesize the available evidence examining RAGT for pain reduction post-SCI, focusing on NP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six databases were searched from inception to February 18th 2025, using search strings addressing: SCI and RAGT. No date or study type restrictions applied. Studies with SCI populations, delivering RAGT and measuring pain outcomes were included. Meta-analyses were conducted for pain intensity, pain interference (PI) and HRQoL outcomes. Certainty of evidence (COE) was assessed using GRADE criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty two studies (n = 567) (6 RCTs) met eligibility criteria. No RCT mandated pain as an inclusion criterion. Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (n = 174) identified no effect for RAGT over other interventions for outcomes of overall pain intensity (SMD = 0.03 [-0.40, 0.46]; P = 0.90), non-specified pain-type intensity (SMD = 0.08 [-0.39, 0.55]; P = 0.74) and in one RCT reporting NP intensity (SMD = -0.46 [-1.61, 0.70]; P = 0.44). Meta-analysis identified no difference between RAGT and comparators for outcomes of HRQoL (3 RCTs (n = 69): SMD = 0.15 [-0.33,0.62]; P = 0.54) and PI (2 RCTs (n = 53): SMD = -0.1 [-0.64,0.44]; P = 0.71). Very-low COE for pain intensity & PI and low COE for HRQoL were assigned.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Very limited studies and inconclusive evidence supports RAGT for the reduction of NP post-SCI. Future RCTs of RAGT that recruit patients with moderate-to-severe NP at baseline are required.</p>","PeriodicalId":50044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2025.2503049","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

Context: Neuropathic pain (NP), can be a debilitating consequence of spinal cord injury. Robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) is an effective rehabilitation tool, but emerging evidence suggests it may prove an effective treatment for NP post-SCI.

Objective: This systematic review aims to synthesize the available evidence examining RAGT for pain reduction post-SCI, focusing on NP.

Methods: Six databases were searched from inception to February 18th 2025, using search strings addressing: SCI and RAGT. No date or study type restrictions applied. Studies with SCI populations, delivering RAGT and measuring pain outcomes were included. Meta-analyses were conducted for pain intensity, pain interference (PI) and HRQoL outcomes. Certainty of evidence (COE) was assessed using GRADE criteria.

Results: Thirty two studies (n = 567) (6 RCTs) met eligibility criteria. No RCT mandated pain as an inclusion criterion. Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (n = 174) identified no effect for RAGT over other interventions for outcomes of overall pain intensity (SMD = 0.03 [-0.40, 0.46]; P = 0.90), non-specified pain-type intensity (SMD = 0.08 [-0.39, 0.55]; P = 0.74) and in one RCT reporting NP intensity (SMD = -0.46 [-1.61, 0.70]; P = 0.44). Meta-analysis identified no difference between RAGT and comparators for outcomes of HRQoL (3 RCTs (n = 69): SMD = 0.15 [-0.33,0.62]; P = 0.54) and PI (2 RCTs (n = 53): SMD = -0.1 [-0.64,0.44]; P = 0.71). Very-low COE for pain intensity & PI and low COE for HRQoL were assigned.

Conclusions: Very limited studies and inconclusive evidence supports RAGT for the reduction of NP post-SCI. Future RCTs of RAGT that recruit patients with moderate-to-severe NP at baseline are required.

机器人辅助步态训练治疗脊髓损伤神经性疼痛:系统综述。
背景:神经性疼痛(NP),可能是脊髓损伤的衰弱后果。机器人辅助步态训练(RAGT)是一种有效的康复工具,但新出现的证据表明,它可能是一种有效的治疗脊髓损伤后NP的方法。目的:本系统综述旨在综合现有证据,以NP为重点,探讨RAGT对脊髓损伤后疼痛减轻的作用。方法:检索自建库至2025年2月18日的6个数据库,检索字符串为SCI和RAGT。没有日期或研究类型的限制。纳入了SCI人群的研究,提供RAGT和测量疼痛结果。对疼痛强度、疼痛干扰(PI)和HRQoL结果进行meta分析。使用GRADE标准评估证据的确定性(COE)。结果:32项研究(n = 567)(6项随机对照试验)符合入选标准。没有随机对照试验将疼痛作为纳入标准。6项随机对照试验(n = 174)的荟萃分析发现,与其他干预措施相比,RAGT对总体疼痛强度的结局没有影响(SMD = 0.03 [-0.40, 0.46];P = 0.90),非特定疼痛类型强度(SMD = 0.08 [-0.39, 0.55];P = 0.74),在一项报告NP强度的RCT中(SMD = -0.46 [-1.61, 0.70];p = 0.44)。meta分析发现,RAGT与比较组HRQoL的结果无差异(3个rct (n = 69)): SMD = 0.15 [-0.33,0.62];P = 0.54)和π(2相关的(n = 53): SMD = -0.1 (-0.64, 0.44);p = 0.71)。疼痛强度和PI的COE非常低,HRQoL的COE也很低。结论:非常有限的研究和不确定的证据支持RAGT减少脊髓损伤后NP。未来的RAGT随机对照试验需要招募基线时患有中度至重度NP的患者。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: For more than three decades, The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine has reflected the evolution of the field of spinal cord medicine. From its inception as a newsletter for physicians striving to provide the best of care, JSCM has matured into an international journal that serves professionals from all disciplines—medicine, nursing, therapy, engineering, psychology and social work.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信