Post-stroke lower limb rehabilitation: a comparative study between exoskeleton robots and traditional gait training.

The review did not combine results into a pooled effect size because the included studies varied in stroke stage, intervention duration and exoskeleton type. Most included studies reported only immediate post-intervention outcomes, and over 96% lacked follow-up beyond six months. Twenty-three percent of RCTs were rated high risk of overall bias, mainly for outcome measurement and selective reporting. The radar-chart scores from 0 to 10 were evidence synthesis tools, not statistical effect sizes, and involved interpretive judgment. Robot outcomes depended on the control strategy: fixed-trajectory assistance sometimes produced inferior or equivalent results to traditional training, while assist-as-needed protocols showed advantages. The staged strategy of traditional training in the acute phase and robot training in the subacute phase is a recommendation by the authors, not a tested intervention in this review. Cost and limited multi-planar movement were noted as practical barriers to broad adoption.

The supplied text lists several funding sources: Zhejiang Province Traditional Chinese Medicine Project, Key Project at the Hospital Level of Ningbo Rehabilitation Hospital, Science and Technology Project of Yinzhou District, Ningbo Public Welfare Project, Key Research and Development Project of Ningbo City, and Zhejiang Public Welfare Project. It does not provide an author conflict-of-interest declaration.

Do not conclude that exoskeleton robots are better than traditional gait training for every stroke patient. The review did not combine results into a pooled effect size, many studies found both groups improved, and robot superiority was reported mainly in short-term outcomes and more severe impairment, with little follow-up beyond six months.