↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of robotic-assisted gait training for paediatric gait disorders: systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
291 Mendeley
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
The effectiveness of robotic-assisted gait training for paediatric gait disorders: systematic review
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12984-016-0214-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophie Lefmann, Remo Russo, Susan Hillier

Abstract

Robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) affords an opportunity to increase walking practice with mechanical assistance from robotic devices, rather than therapists, where the child may not be able to generate a sufficient or correct motion with enough repetitions to promote improvement. However the devices are expensive and clinicians and families need to understand if the approach is worthwhile for their children, and how it may be best delivered. The objective of this review was to identify and appraise the existing evidence for the effectiveness of RAGT for paediatric gait disorders, including modes of delivery and potential benefit. Six databases were searched from 1980 to October 2016, using relevant search terms. Any clinical trial that evaluated a clinical aspect of RAGT for children/adolescents with altered gait was selected for inclusion. Data were extracted following the PRISMA approach. Seventeen trials were identified, assessed for level of evidence and risk of bias, and appropriate data extracted for reporting. Three randomized controlled trials were identified, with the remainder of lower level design. Most individual trials reported some positive benefits for RAGT with children with cerebral palsy (CP), on activity parameters such as standing ability, walking speed and distance. However a meta-analysis of the two eligible RCTs did not confirm this finding (p = 0.72). Training schedules were highly variable in duration and frequency and adverse events were either not reported or were minimal. There was a paucity of evidence for diagnoses other than CP. There is weak and inconsistent evidence regarding the use of RAGT for children with gait disorders. If clinicians (and their clients) choose to use RAGT, they should monitor individual progress closely with appropriate outcome measures including monitoring of adverse events. Further research is required using higher level trial design, increased numbers, in specific populations and with relevant outcome measures to both confirm effectiveness and clarify training schedules.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 290 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 12%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 102 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 51 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 15%
Engineering 42 14%
Neuroscience 10 3%
Sports and Recreations 7 2%
Other 22 8%
Unknown 114 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 06 July 2022.
All research outputs
#3,288,500
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#183
of 1,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,495
of 420,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 420,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.