↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Gait Training versus conventional therapy on mobility in severely disabled progressIve MultiplE sclerosis patients (RAGTIME): study protocol for a randomized…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
470 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 Robot-Assisted Gait Training versus conventional therapy on mobility in severely disabled progressIve MultiplE sclerosis patients (RAGTIME): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-1838-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofia Straudi, Fabio Manfredini, Nicola Lamberti, Paolo Zamboni, Francesco Bernardi, Giovanna Marchetti, Paolo Pinton, Massimo Bonora, Paola Secchiero, Veronica Tisato, Stefano Volpato, Nino Basaglia

Abstract

Gait and mobility impairments affect the quality of life (QoL) of patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (MS). Robot-assisted gait training (RAGT) is an effective rehabilitative treatment but evidence of its superiority compared to other options is lacking. Furthermore, the response to rehabilitation is multidimensional, person-specific and possibly involves functional reorganization processes. The aims of this study are: (1) to test the effectiveness on gait speed, mobility, balance, fatigue and QoL of RAGT compared to conventional therapy (CT) in progressive MS and (2) to explore changes of clinical and circulating biomarkers of neural plasticity. This will be a parallel-group, randomized controlled trial design with the assessor blinded to the group allocation of participants. Ninety-eight (49 per arm) progressive MS patients (EDSS scale 6-7) will be randomly assigned to receive twelve 2-h training sessions over a 4-week period (three sessions/week) of either: (1) RAGT intervention on a robotic-driven gait orthosis (Lokomat, Hocoma, Switzerland). The training parameters (torque of the knee and hip drives, treadmill speed, body weight support) are set during the first session and progressively adjusted during training progression or (2) individual conventional physiotherapy focusing on over-ground walking training performed with the habitual walking device. The same assessors will perform outcome measurements at four time points: baseline (before the first intervention session); intermediate (after six training sessions); end of treatment (after the completion of 12 sessions); and follow-up (after 3 months from the end of the training program). The primary outcome is gait speed, assessed by the Timed 25-Foot Walk Test. We will also assess walking endurance, balance, depression, fatigue and QoL as well as instrumental laboratory markers (muscle metabolism, cerebral venous hemodynamics, cortical activation) and circulating laboratory markers (rare circulating cell populations pro and anti-inflammatory cytokines/chemokines, growth factors, neurotrophic factors, coagulation factors, other plasma proteins suggested by transcriptomic analysis and metabolic parameters). The RAGT training is expected to improve mobility compared to the active control intervention in progressive MS. Unique to this study is the analysis of various potential markers of plasticity in relation with clinical outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02421731 . Registered on 19 January 2015 (retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 470 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 470 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 70 15%
Student > Bachelor 60 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 9%
Researcher 37 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 4%
Other 65 14%
Unknown 174 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 75 16%
Sports and Recreations 33 7%
Psychology 18 4%
Neuroscience 16 3%
Other 52 11%
Unknown 195 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 November 2022.
All research outputs
#6,429,270
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#594
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,082
of 328,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 328,828 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.