Effect of robotic-assisted gait training on gait and motor function in spinal cord injury: a protocol of a systematic review with meta-analysis

Abstract

Introduction Robotic-assisted gait training (RAGT) has been reported to be effective in rehabilitating patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, studies on RAGT showed different results due to a varied number of samples. Thus, summarising studies based on robotic-related factors is critical for the accurate estimation of the effects of RAGT on SCI. This work aims to search for strong evidence showing that using RAGT is effective in treating SCI and analyse the deficiencies of current studies.Methods and analysis The following publication databases were electronically searched in December 2022 without restrictions on publication year: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Various combinations of keywords, including ‘motor disorders’, ‘robotics’, ‘robotic-assisted gait training’, ‘Spinal Cord Injuries’, ‘SCI’ and ‘gait analysis’ were used as search terms. All articles on randomised controlled trials (excluding retrospective trials) using RAGT to treat SCI that were published in English and Chinese and met the inclusion criteria were included. Outcomes included motor function, and gait parameters included those assessed by using the instrumented gait assessment, the Berg Balance Scale, the 10-m walk speed test, the 6-min walk endurance test, the functional ambulation category scale, the Walking index of SCI and the American Spinal Injury Association assessment scale. Research selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers to ensure that all relevant studies were free from personal bias. In addition, the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Review Manager V.5.3 software was used to produce deviation risk maps and perform paired meta-analyses.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for systematic reviews and network meta-analyses. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal or presented at a conference.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022319555.