Skip to main content

Table 4 Multiple treatment comparison of the network for velocity and distance outcome

From: The efficacy of gait rehabilitations for the treatment of incomplete spinal cord injury: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Reference treatment

Mean difference

CPT

FES + TM

RAGT

TM

FES

Velocity, m/s

     

CPT

17.8, 0.8

0.05 (− 0.08,0.18)

0.04 (− 0.03,0.10)

0.05 (− 0.07,0.17)

0.12 (− 0.07,0.31)

FES + TM

− 0.05 (− 0.18,0.08)

48.6,11.6

− 0.01 (− 0.14,0.11)

0.00 (− 0.14,0.14)

0.07 (− 0.12,0.26)

RAGT

− 0.04 (− 0.10,0.03)

0.01 (− 0.11,0.14)

47.0,6.7

0.02 (− 0.10,0.13)

0.08 (− 0.10,0.26)

TM

− 0.05 (− 0.17,0.07)

− 0.00 (− 0.14,0.14)

− 0.02 (− 0.13,0.10)

54.4,14.3

0.07 (− 0.12,0.25)

FES

− 0.12 (− 0.31,0.07)

− 0.07 (− 0.26,0.12)

− 0.08 (− 0.26,0.10)

− 0.07 (− 0.25,0.12)

82.1,66.6

Distance, m

     

CPT

10.8, 0.1

68.64 (− 40.39, 177.67)

37.58 (− 32.58, 107.73)

73.36 (− 2.78, 149.50)

76.26 (− 59.68, 212.20)

FES + TM

− 68.64 (− 177.67, 40.39)

60.6, 23.7

− 31.06 (− 144.60, 82.47)

4.72 (− 110.18, 119.62)

7.62 (− 132.66, 147.91)

RAGT

− 37.58 (− 107.73, 32.58)

31.60 (− 82.47, 144.60)

41.9, 6.7

35.78 (− 56.05, 127.61)

38.69 (− 95.66, 173.03)

TM

− 73.36 (− 149.50, 2.78)

− 4.72 (− 119.62, 110.18)

− 35.78 (− 127.61, 56.05)

69.4, 29.8

2.90 (− 131.89, 137.70)

FES

− 76.26 (− 212.20, 59.68)

− 7.62 (− 147.91, 132.66)

− 38.69 (− 173.03, 95.66)

− 2.90 (− 137.70, 131.89)

67.4, 39.7

  1. CPT, conventional physical therapy, FES, functional electrical stimulation, TM, treadmill, RAGT, robotic-assisted gait training, FES + TM, functional electrical stimulation combined with treadmill, bold letters determine surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), and probability of being the best treatment, respectively