中风后行走的机电辅助训练。

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jan Mehrholz, Joachim Kugler, Marcus Pohl, Bernhard Elsner
{"title":"中风后行走的机电辅助训练。","authors":"Jan Mehrholz, Joachim Kugler, Marcus Pohl, Bernhard Elsner","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Walking difficulties are common after a stroke. During rehabilitation, electromechanical and robotic gait-training devices can help improve walking. As the evidence and certainty of the evidence may have changed since our last update in 2020, we aimed to update the scientific evidence on the benefits and acceptability of these technologies to ensure they remain a viable option for stroke rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Primary • To determine whether electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care) improves walking in adults after stroke. Secondary • To determine whether electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care) after stroke improves walking velocity, walking capacity, acceptability, and death from all causes until the end of the intervention phase.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trial authors to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. The date of the latest search was December 2023.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>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 robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care).</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcome was the ability to walk independently, measured with the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC). An FAC score of 4 or 5 indicated independent walking over a 15-metre surface, irrespective of aids used, such as a cane. An FAC score less than 4 indicates dependency in walking (supervision or assistance, or both, must be given in performing walking). Important outcomes included walking velocity and capacity, as well as dropouts.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used Cochrane's RoB 1 tool.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We used random-effects models for the meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 101 studies (39 new studies plus 62 studies from previous versions) with a total of 4224 participants after stroke in our review update.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy probably increases the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (odds ratio (OR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.25; P = 0.001; I² = 31%; 51 studies, 2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); probably does not increase mean walking velocity (mean difference (MD) 0.05 m/s, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.08; P < 0.001; I² = 58%; 73 studies, 3043 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and does not increase mean walking capacity (MD 11 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI 1.8 to 20.3; P = 0.02; I² = 43%; 42 studies, 1966 participants; high-certainty evidence). Electromechanical-assisted gait training does not increase or decrease the risk of loss to the study during the intervention or the risk of death from all causes (high-certainty evidence). At follow-up after study end, electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy may not increase the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.48; P = 0.20; I² = 69%; 8 studies, 569 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably does not increase mean walking velocity (MD 0.05 m/s, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; P = 0.22; I² = 66%; 17 studies, 857 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or mean walking capacity (MD 9.6 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI -14.6 to 33.7; P = 0.44; I² = 53%; 15 studies, 736 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Our results must be interpreted with caution because (1) some trials investigated people who were independent in walking at the start of the study; and (2) there was variation between trials with respect to the devices used and duration and frequency of treatment.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Moderate-certainty evidence shows that people who receive electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy after stroke are probably more likely to achieve independent walking than people who receive gait training without these devices.We concluded that nine patients need to be treated to prevent one dependency in walking. Further research should consist of large, definitive pragmatic phase 3 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. Future trials should consider time poststroke in their trial design.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol (2006): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185 Original review (2007): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub2 Review update (2013): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub3 Review update (2017): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub4 Review update (2020): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub5.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"5 ","pages":"CD006185"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12076539/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Jan Mehrholz, Joachim Kugler, Marcus Pohl, Bernhard Elsner\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Walking difficulties are common after a stroke. During rehabilitation, electromechanical and robotic gait-training devices can help improve walking. As the evidence and certainty of the evidence may have changed since our last update in 2020, we aimed to update the scientific evidence on the benefits and acceptability of these technologies to ensure they remain a viable option for stroke rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Primary • To determine whether electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care) improves walking in adults after stroke. Secondary • To determine whether electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care) after stroke improves walking velocity, walking capacity, acceptability, and death from all causes until the end of the intervention phase.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trial authors to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. The date of the latest search was December 2023.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>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 robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care).</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our critical outcome was the ability to walk independently, measured with the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC). An FAC score of 4 or 5 indicated independent walking over a 15-metre surface, irrespective of aids used, such as a cane. An FAC score less than 4 indicates dependency in walking (supervision or assistance, or both, must be given in performing walking). Important outcomes included walking velocity and capacity, as well as dropouts.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used Cochrane's RoB 1 tool.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We used random-effects models for the meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 101 studies (39 new studies plus 62 studies from previous versions) with a total of 4224 participants after stroke in our review update.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy probably increases the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (odds ratio (OR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.25; P = 0.001; I² = 31%; 51 studies, 2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); probably does not increase mean walking velocity (mean difference (MD) 0.05 m/s, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.08; P < 0.001; I² = 58%; 73 studies, 3043 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and does not increase mean walking capacity (MD 11 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI 1.8 to 20.3; P = 0.02; I² = 43%; 42 studies, 1966 participants; high-certainty evidence). Electromechanical-assisted gait training does not increase or decrease the risk of loss to the study during the intervention or the risk of death from all causes (high-certainty evidence). At follow-up after study end, electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy may not increase the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.48; P = 0.20; I² = 69%; 8 studies, 569 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably does not increase mean walking velocity (MD 0.05 m/s, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; P = 0.22; I² = 66%; 17 studies, 857 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or mean walking capacity (MD 9.6 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI -14.6 to 33.7; P = 0.44; I² = 53%; 15 studies, 736 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Our results must be interpreted with caution because (1) some trials investigated people who were independent in walking at the start of the study; and (2) there was variation between trials with respect to the devices used and duration and frequency of treatment.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Moderate-certainty evidence shows that people who receive electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy after stroke are probably more likely to achieve independent walking than people who receive gait training without these devices.We concluded that nine patients need to be treated to prevent one dependency in walking. Further research should consist of large, definitive pragmatic phase 3 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. Future trials should consider time poststroke in their trial design.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol (2006): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185 Original review (2007): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub2 Review update (2013): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub3 Review update (2017): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub4 Review update (2020): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub5.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"CD006185\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12076539/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

原评(2007):doi: 10.002 /14651858.CD006185。pub2 Review update (2013): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185。pub3 Review update (2017): doi: 10.002 /14651858. cd006185。pub4综述更新(2020):doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub5。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke.

Rationale: Walking difficulties are common after a stroke. During rehabilitation, electromechanical and robotic gait-training devices can help improve walking. As the evidence and certainty of the evidence may have changed since our last update in 2020, we aimed to update the scientific evidence on the benefits and acceptability of these technologies to ensure they remain a viable option for stroke rehabilitation.

Objectives: Primary • To determine whether electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care) improves walking in adults after stroke. Secondary • To determine whether electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care) after stroke improves walking velocity, walking capacity, acceptability, and death from all causes until the end of the intervention phase.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trial authors to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. The date of the latest search was December 2023.

Eligibility criteria: 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 robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care).

Outcomes: Our critical outcome was the ability to walk independently, measured with the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC). An FAC score of 4 or 5 indicated independent walking over a 15-metre surface, irrespective of aids used, such as a cane. An FAC score less than 4 indicates dependency in walking (supervision or assistance, or both, must be given in performing walking). Important outcomes included walking velocity and capacity, as well as dropouts.

Risk of bias: We used Cochrane's RoB 1 tool.

Synthesis methods: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We used random-effects models for the meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Included studies: We included 101 studies (39 new studies plus 62 studies from previous versions) with a total of 4224 participants after stroke in our review update.

Synthesis of results: Electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy probably increases the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (odds ratio (OR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.25; P = 0.001; I² = 31%; 51 studies, 2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); probably does not increase mean walking velocity (mean difference (MD) 0.05 m/s, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.08; P < 0.001; I² = 58%; 73 studies, 3043 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and does not increase mean walking capacity (MD 11 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI 1.8 to 20.3; P = 0.02; I² = 43%; 42 studies, 1966 participants; high-certainty evidence). Electromechanical-assisted gait training does not increase or decrease the risk of loss to the study during the intervention or the risk of death from all causes (high-certainty evidence). At follow-up after study end, electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy may not increase the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.48; P = 0.20; I² = 69%; 8 studies, 569 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably does not increase mean walking velocity (MD 0.05 m/s, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; P = 0.22; I² = 66%; 17 studies, 857 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or mean walking capacity (MD 9.6 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI -14.6 to 33.7; P = 0.44; I² = 53%; 15 studies, 736 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Our results must be interpreted with caution because (1) some trials investigated people who were independent in walking at the start of the study; and (2) there was variation between trials with respect to the devices used and duration and frequency of treatment.

Authors' conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that people who receive electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy after stroke are probably more likely to achieve independent walking than people who receive gait training without these devices.We concluded that nine patients need to be treated to prevent one dependency in walking. Further research should consist of large, definitive pragmatic phase 3 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. Future trials should consider time poststroke in their trial design.

Funding: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

Registration: Protocol (2006): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185 Original review (2007): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub2 Review update (2013): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub3 Review update (2017): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub4 Review update (2020): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub5.

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
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信