Evidence Hub

Comparative efficacy of robotic exoskeleton and conventional gait training in patients with spinal cord injury: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Sheng-Ye Liu, Fangyuan Chen, Jianqiao Yin, Guan-Qi Wang, Li-Yu Yang

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 2025

579 participants · 28 citations

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of Robotic exoskeleton gait training (REGT) on lower limb mobility, walking balance, functional scores and respiratory function in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from inception until December 24, 2024. Eligible randomized controlled trials contained information on the population (SCI), intervention (REGT), and outcomes (walking speed and distance, walking balance, functional scores for SCI rehabilitation, respiratory function). Participants in the REGT intervention group were compared with those in conventional physical gait training (CPT) groups. Two independent researchers conducted the research,screened the articles, and assessed their eligibility. Two independent researchers extracted key information from each eligible study. The authors’ names, year of publication, setting, total sample size, REGT, CPT training schedule, baseline/mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were extracted using a standardized form, and the methodological quality was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Of 595 studies identified, 15 randomized controlled trials (n = 579) were included for meta-analysis. Compared with conventional physical gait training (CPT), REGT showed no significant efficacy in walking speed (10-Meter Walk Test, WMD (95%CI) = − 0.03 (− 0.06,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 579 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free