Comparative trials on hybrid walking systems for people with paraplegia

Abstract

A new orthosis (SEPRIX) which combines user friendliness with low energy cost of walking has been developed and will be subject to a clinical comparison with conventional hip-knee-ankle-foot orthoses. In designing such comparative trials it was considered it may be worthwhile to use previous clinical studies as practical examples. A literature search was conducted in order to select all comparative trials which have studied two walking systems (hip-knee-ankle-foot orthoses) for patients with a complete thoracic lesion. Study population, intervention, study design, outcome measurement and statistical analyses were examined. Statistical power was calculated where possible. Of 12 selected studies, 7 were simple A-B comparisons, 2 A-B comparisons with a replication, 2 cross-over trials and 1 non-randomised parallel group design, the last of which was considered internally invalid due to severe confounding by indication. All A-B comparisons were considered internally invalid as well, since they have not taken into account that a comparison of two orthoses requires a control for aspecific effects (like test effects) which may cause a difference. Statistical power could only be examined in 4 studies and the highest statistical power achieved in one study was 47 %. It is concluded that statistical power was too low to be able to detect differences. Even analysis through interval estimation showed that the estimation of the difference was too imprecise to be useful. Since the majority of the surveyed papers have reported small studies (of only 4–6 patients), it is assumed that lack of statistical power is a more general problem. Three possibilities are discussed in order to enhance statistical power in comparative trials, i.e. multicentre studies, statistical pooling of results and improving the efficiency of study design by means of interrupted time series designs.

The Orthotic Effect of Functional Electrical Stimulation on the Improvement of Walking in Stroke Patients with a Dropped Foot: A Systematic Review

“…Five of the eight included studies were open label studies, which means that there was no control group (6–8,36,38). The two remaining studies were crossover studies (35,37), whose designs could be a problem in comparative trials using FES, because of a possible carry‐over effect (45).…”

Gait training after spinal cord injury: safety, feasibility and gait function following 8 weeks of training with the exoskeletons from Ekso Bionics

“…A strength of this study is that we included both participants with para-and tetraplegia, recent (<1 year) and chronic (>1 year) injuries and motor complete as well as incomplete SCI. This reflects the nature of the SCI population [36] and increases external validity. However, there is a selection bias of the study population, since the study was nonblinded and non-controlled and only participants who could commit to the training protocol were included.…”

Benefits of FES gait in a spinal cord injured population

“…One reason why uncertainty exists in the rehabilitation-provider community is that FES gait studies have typically included small sample sizes and quite heterogeneous populations which is a common problem across the SCI research area. 9 This has led to results from many research studies being statistically under-powered. Thus, it has been difficult to make unambiguous conclusions from individual studies for what (if any) secondary benefits may exist.…”