↓ Skip to main content

Robot-assisted walking training for individuals with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Robot-assisted walking training for individuals with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Neurology, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-13-50
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrizio Sale, Maria Francesca De Pandis, Domenica Le Pera, Ivan Sova, Veronica Cimolin, Andrea Ancillao, Giorgio Albertini, Manuela Galli, Fabrizio Stocchi, Marco Franceschini

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over the last years, the introduction of robotic technologies into Parkinson's disease rehabilitation settings has progressed from concept to reality. However, the benefit of robotic training remains elusive. This pilot randomized controlled observer trial is aimed at investigating the feasibility, the effectiveness and the efficacy of new end-effector robot training in people with mild Parkinson's disease. METHODS: Design. Pilot randomized controlled trial.Setting. Robot assisted gait training (EG) compared to treadmill training (CG).Participants. Twenty cognitively intact participants with mild Parkinson's disease and gait disturbance.Interventions. The EG underwent a rehabilitation programme of robot assisted walking for 40 minutes, 5 times a week for 4 weeks. The CG received a treadmill training programme for 40 minutes, 5 times a week for 4 weeks.Main outcome measures. The outcome measure of efficacy was recorded by gait analysis laboratory. The assessments were performed at the beginning (T0) and at the end of the treatment (T1). The main outcome was the change in velocity. The feasibility of the intervention was assessed by recording exercise adherence and acceptability by specific test. RESULTS: Robot training was feasible, acceptable, safe, and the participants completed 100% of the prescribed training sessions. A statistically significant improvement in gait index was found in favour of the EG (T0 versus T1). In particular, the statistical analysis of primary outcome (gait speed) using the Friedman test showed statistically significant improvements for the EG (p = 0,0195). The statistical analysis performed by Friedman test of Step length left (p = 0,0195) and right (p = 0,0195) and Stride length left (p = 0,0078) and right (p = 0,0195) showed a significant statistical gain. No statistically significant improvements on the CG were found. CONCLUSIONS: Robot training is a feasible and safe form of rehabilitative exercise for cognitively intact people with mild PD. This original approach can contribute to increase a short time lower limb motor recovery in idiopathic PD patients. The focus on the gait recovery is a further characteristic that makes this research relevant to clinical practice. On the whole, the simplicity of treatment, the lack of side effects, and the positive results from patients support the recommendation to extend the use of this treatment. Further investigation regarding the long-time effectiveness of robot training is warranted.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01668407.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 232 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 18%
Student > Master 30 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Researcher 21 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 5%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 73 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 15%
Engineering 30 13%
Neuroscience 17 7%
Sports and Recreations 12 5%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 78 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2013.
All research outputs
#5,943,994
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#660
of 2,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,924
of 195,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#9
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 195,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.