Table 8.
Strength of Evidence Summary Table.
| No. of Studies/N/Follow-up | Strength of Evidence | Conclusions, Effect Size | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight–supported treadmill training (BWSTT) vs conventional rehabilitation | |||
| FIM-L Score (± SD) | 1 RCT/146/12 months | Lowa | There were no differences between BWSTT and conventional rehabilitation for ASIA B (mean difference, 0.6 ± 1.2) or ASIA C and D patients (mean difference, 0. 2 ± 0.94) |
| LEMS Score (± SD) | 1 RCT/146/12 months | Lowa | There were no differences between BWSTT and conventional rehabilitation for ASIA B (mean difference, −1.2 ± 3.5) or ASIA C and D patients (mean difference, −1.0 ± 2.7) |
| Distance walked in 6 min (m) (±SD) | 1 RCT/146/12 months | Lowa | There were no differences between BWSTT and conventional rehabilitation for ASIA B (mean difference, −5.7 ± 14.9 m) or ASIA C and D patients (mean difference, −3.6 ± 46.7 m) |
| Difference in gait velocity over 15.2 m (m/s) (±SD) | 1 RCT/146/12 months | Lowa | There were no differences between BWSTT and conventional rehabilitation for ASIA B (mean difference, −0.47 ± 0.14 m/s) or ASIA C and D patients (mean difference, 0.12 ± 0.34 m/s) |
| Functional electrical stimulation vs control/conventional occupational therapy | |||
| FIM Motor subscore | 1 RCT/24/8 weeks | Lowa | FES treatment resulted in a significant 11.3 point increase in FIM Motor subscore compared with COT |
| FIM Self-Care Subscore | 1 RCT/24/8 weeks | Lowa | FES treatment resulted in a significant 10.4 point increase in FIM Self-Care subscore compared with COT |
| SCIM Self-Care subscore | 1 RCT/24/8 weeks | Lowa | FES treatment resulted in a significant 5.7 point increase in SCIM Self-Care subscore compared with COT |
| TRI HFT | 1 RCT/24/8 weeks | Lowa | Of the 9 subdomains evaluated, only ability to hold a cylinder and credit card showed that FES was slightly more effective than COT |
| Training unsupported sitting (TUS) vs control/standard inpatient therapy (control) | |||
| Maximal Lean Test (mm) | 1 RCT/32/6-7 weeks | Lowa | There were no differences between TUS and standard inpatient therapy (mean difference, −20 mm (95% CI −64, 24)) |
| Maximal Sideward Reach Test (% arm length) | 1 RCT/32/6-7 weeks | Lowa | There were no differences between TUS and standard inpatient therapy (difference in mean % arm length, 5% (95% CI −3%, 13%)) |
| T-Shirt Test (seconds) | 1 RCT/32/6-7 weeks | Lowa | There were no differences between TUS and standard inpatient therapy (difference in mean duration, 8 seconds (95% CI −5, 20)) |
| COPM Performance (points/10) | 1 RCT/32/6-7 weeks | Lowa | There were no differences between TUS and standard inpatient therapy (median difference, 0.5 (IQR −0.05, 1.5)) |
| COPM Satisfaction (points/10) | 1 RCT/32/6-7 weeks | Lowa | There were no differences between TUS and standard inpatient therapy (median difference, −1.0 (IQR −1.0, 1.0)) |
Abbreviations: BWSTT: Body Weight–Supported Treadmill Training; CI, confidence interval; COPM, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; COT, conventional occupational therapy; FES, functional electrical stimulation; FIM, Functional Independence measure; FIM-L, Functional Independence Measure–locomotor score; IQR, interquartile range; NR, not reported; SCIM, Spinal Cord Independence Measure; TUS, Training Unsupported Sitting; TRI-HFT, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Hand Function Test.
a Downgraded for serious risk of bias and imprecision