CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 334Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsSpinal Cord Injury Research

Rhythmic Auditor y Stimulation Improves Gait More Than NDT/Bobath Training in Near-Ambulatory Patients Early Poststroke: A Single-Blind, Randomized Trial

Thaut, M.H., Leins, A.K., Rice, R.R., Argstatter, H., Kenyon, G.P., McIntosh, G.C., Bolay, H.V., Fetter, M.·2007·Neurorehabilitation and neural repair
DOI 10.1177/1545968307300523
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of 2 different types of gait training in stroke rehabilitation, rhythmic auditory stimulation (RAS) versus neurodevelopmental therapy (NDT)/Bobath- based training, was compared in 2 groups of hemiparetic stroke patients over a 3-week period of daily training (RAS group, n = 43; NDT/Bobath group =35). METHODS: Mean entry date into the study was 21.3 days poststroke for the RAS group and 22.3 days for the control group. Patients entered the study as soon as they were able to complete 5 stride cycles with handheld assistance. Patients were closely equated by age, gender, and lesion site. Motor function in both groups was pre-assessed by the Barthel Index and the Fugl-Meyer Scales. RESULTS: Pre- to posttest measures showed a significant improvement in the RAS group for velocity (P = .006), stride length (P = .0001), cadence (P = .0001) and symmetry (P = .0049) over the NDT/Bobath group. Effect sizes for RAS over NDT/Bobath training were 13.1 m/min for velocity, 0.18 m for stride length, and 19 steps/min for cadence. CONCLUSIONS: The data show that after 3 weeks of gait training, RAS is an effective therapeutic method to enhance gait training in hemiparetic stroke rehabilitation. Gains were significantly higher for RAS compared to NDT/Bobath training.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1545968307300523

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any particular other approach on mobility.

    “Based on van Tulder's BES rule, there was strong evidence in favor of other approaches; however, because the other intervention was quite different in each study except for Thaut et al 55 and Thaut et al, 49 we suggest that there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any other particular approach.”

    From The Effectiveness of the Bobath Concept in Stroke Rehabilitation: What is the Evidence? (2009) · cites this paper as [49]

  • Based on van Tulder's BES rule, there was strong evidence in favor of other approaches on mobility.

    “Based on van Tulder's BES rule, there was strong evidence in favor of other approaches; however, because the other intervention was quite different in each study except for Thaut et al 55 and Thaut et al, 49 we suggest that there is insufficient evidence for the superiority of any other particular approach.”

    From The Effectiveness of the Bobath Concept in Stroke Rehabilitation: What is the Evidence? (2009) · cites this paper as [49]

  • Not all studies in the review are true comparative studies between approaches; 4 studies reported comparison of alternative approaches as an adjunct to Bobath therapy.

    “A further consideration is the fact that not all studies are true comparative studies between approaches; 4 studies in this review reported comparison of alternative approaches as an adjunct to Bobath therapy (treadmill training, 38 Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation, 49,55 and independent standing practice 47 ).”

    From The Effectiveness of the Bobath Concept in Stroke Rehabilitation: What is the Evidence? (2009) · cites this paper as [49]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Thaut, M. H., Leins, A. K., Rice, R. R., Argstatter, H., Kenyon, G. P., McIntosh, G. C., Bolay, H. V., & Fetter, M.
Affiliations
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • University of Applied Sciences Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Poudre Valley Hospital (US)
  • SRH Klinikum Karlsbad-Langensteinbach (DE)
Corresponding author
Thaut, M.H.
ORCID
Venue
Neurorehabilitation and neural repair
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2007-09
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
455-459
ISSN
  • 0888-4390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-9683
  • 1552-6844
DOI
10.1177/1545968307300523
OpenAlex
W2130816522
Cited by
334
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 19
FWCI
11.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Neurorehabilitation and neural repair (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
Keywords
rhythmic auditory stimulation, gait training, stroke rehabilitation, hemiparesis, neurodevelopmental treatment, Bobath therapy, walking speed, stride length, cadence, gait symmetry
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Acoustic Stimulation, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Rehabilitation, Time Factors, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Recovery of Function, Gait Disorders, Neurologic, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review