Skip to content

Explorations of the Benefits of the ZeroG TRiP System to Improve Balance in Patients Following Stroke

Unblinded Quasi-Randomized Pilot Study Exploring the Benefits of the ZeroG TRiP System to Improve Patient Balance Following an Acute Stroke

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04919161
Enrollment
32
Registered
2021-06-09
Start date
2019-10-03
Completion date
2020-08-28
Last updated
2021-08-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Balance; Distorted, Stroke

Keywords

Stroke Rehabilitation, Postural Balance, Gait and Ambulation, Balance Perturbation, Postural Perturbation, Body Weight Support System, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, Long Term Acute Care Hospital, Berg Balance Scale, Activities Specific Balance Confidence Scale, Balance Rehabilitation

Brief summary

Strokes are neurological events that can lead to devastating physical and cognitive deficits, such as the inability to ambulate, impaired balance regulation, and loss of coordination. Due to the physical and cognitive deficits experienced following a stroke, many require admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility to maximize their independence before returning to the home setting. The ability to walk, stand, climb stairs, and other mobility-related functional tasks, are critical components of achieving this functional independence. However, it is often difficult for post-stroke patients with balance impairments to safely practice balance and gait training without putting both therapists and patients at risk for injury. Incorporating robotic technologies to neurological rehabilitation can play a critical role in delivering safe and effective gait and balance therapy. Body-weight support systems (BWSSs) unload paretic lower limbs, patients with gait impairments can practice a higher repetition of steps in a safe, controlled manner. As participants perform gait training, these systems support the participant's body-weight, permitting those with excessive weakness and poor coordination, to ambulate and perform more intensive therapy sessions sooner in their recovery, with minimal risk injurious fall. In addition to BWSSs, balance perturbation systems, which purposefully unbalance participants so to rehabilitate their postural control, have been used to improve gait and balance-control after stroke, or other age and disease related balance impairments. The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a recently developed, not yet reported, balance perturbation module for the ZeroG BWSS. This new balance perturbation training module is directly integrated into the ZeroG BWSS and allows for the direct induction of safe lateral, anterior, and/or posterior perturbations via a Wi-Fi-enabled handheld device. During both stationary and ambulatory activities, this system was used unbalance participants in order to train their balance-control and balance-reactions. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine if this newly developed BWSS balance perturbation system more effectively rehabilitates participant gait and balance after stroke than the standard BWSS protocol without perturbations.

Detailed description

Body-Weight Support System Equipment and Interventions: For this study, the BWSS used was the FDA listed ZeroG Gait and Balance System (Aretech, LLC, Ashburn, VA). ZeroG was first introduced to the investigators institution in September 2019. Unlike some BWSSs, this device is mounted on an overhead track that follows users during ambulation. Like other BWSSs, this system is designed to unload the users of up-to 200 pounds of their body weight while simultaneously protecting patients from falling. For this study, 10 pounds of participants' body-weight, the system minimum required to engage the BWSS, was continuously displaced. If a participant were to fall, the system would detect the change, decelerate, and stop the descent after a set distance; the fall distance was set between 8 to 12 inches for the purpose of this study. Unlike other BWSSs, a newly developed balance perturbation module known as the Training Responses in Postural rehabilitation or TRiP, is directly integrated to the ZeroG BWSS. This perturbation module is different than other systems as the balance perturbations are elicited directly through the BWSS and do not require a treadmill, tilt-table/shaking platform, or manual exertion by a. Further, they can be induced during normal gait and balance exercises during therapy. The BWSS control group interventions consisted of various balance activities, including: marching, side-stepping, retro-ambulation, step-taps, and step-ups. The BWSS control group also practiced various gait tasks, including: ambulation over the ground, going up and down stairs, and performing sit-to-stand transitions. The BWSS with perturbation (BWSS-P) intervention group performed the same activities as the control group, with the addition of lateral, anterior, and posterior perturbations. Assistive devices and equipment were used during intervention sessions as recommended by the participant's primary therapist, including: canes, rolling walkers, hemi-walkers, and ankle-foot-orthoses (AFO), ankle support braces, and upper extremity slings. Investigators administered perturbations using a Wi-Fi-enabled handheld device linked to the BWSS and these consisted of a sudden and brief assistive or resistive force in the desired direction. Lateral perturbations were issued while participants were in a static stance, while anterior and posterior perturbations were issued during ambulation; eight perturbations, two in each direction, were completed each session. All participants started at perturbation level one and progressed up to a maximum perturbation level of ten through the course of the study. The amount of force exerted at each perturbation level is pre-set by the manufacturer. The perturbation level (i.e. intensity or force) used each session was based on the participant's progress and observational analysis made by the investigator of the participants' response to the perturbation level. If the participant was able to tolerate the initial perturbation level without exhibiting a balance reaction, the perturbation level was incrementally increased until an appropriate balance reaction was exhibited. If a participant was unable to recover and elicited a fall response in the system, the perturbation level was decreased by one level to ensure patient safety, and the exercise repeated to reinforce the exercise mechanics and participant confidence. Participants in both study groups received a total of eight treatment sessions over two weeks. As necessary, participants received up to two sessions in one day to ensure they completed the required eight sessions before discharge. These sessions were incorporated into the participants' regular care. Treatment sessions were broken into 30 minute blocks as it standard at the host facility. This time includes participant transportation, equipment set-up, and in the case of this study, donning the BWSS harness. On average, participants received 20 minutes of active time in the BWSS for each 30 minute treatment block. All sessions were analyzed equally despite the length of time in the BWSS. Missing data: When outcome measurements are missing due to early participant withdrawal, if the participant completed 50% or less of the study sessions, that participant's data was removed. If the participant completed greater than 50%, then that participant's data was analyzed as normal. Data Analysis: Data was analyzed using GraphPad Prism version 9.0.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). To compare the observed proportion of males and females in the BWSS groups, a Binomial Test and Fisher's exact test were used. The 95% confidence intervals reported the proportion of males and females in the BWSS-P group were calculated using the Wilson-Brown Method. Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Activities specific Balance Confidence measurement changes between the pre- and post-intervention were compared directly, as well as between groups. The degree of change made by each individual was shown by calculating the percent change: \[((Post assessment) - (Pre assessment)) / (Pre assessment)\] ×100% . BBS data of stroke rehabilitation patients from fiscal year 2018 served as a historical standard of care (SOC) baseline control. The SOC data was sorted to consist of patients with initial BBS scores of 21 or greater and who were admitted and discharged before the launch of the institution's BWSS in September 2018. This resulted in the inclusion of retrospective BBS data from 30 patients. Shapiro-Wilk testing was first used to test for normality; if one or more of the data-sets in the group failed (p\<0.05), nonparametric tests were used going forward. For hypothesis testing between two groups, unpaired or paired two-tailed Student's t-test were conducted as appropriate. When indicated by an F-test for variance (p\<0.05), Welch's correction was applied for unequal standard deviations between groups. When comparing three or more groups, if one or more groups were abnormally distributed, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variation (ANOVA) test and Dunn's multiple comparison test for statistical hypothesis testing were used. When normally distributed, an Ordinary one-way ANOVA with a Tukey's multiple comparisons test for statistical hypothesis testing was used. If Brown-Forsythe's test for variance indicated the variance of the groups were significantly different (p\<0.05), a Brown-Forsythe correction was applied and Dunnett's T3 multiple comparisons test for statistical hypothesis testing was used instead.

Interventions

The BWSS control group interventions consisted of various balance activities, including: marching, side-stepping, retro-ambulation, step-taps, and step-ups. The BWSS control group also practiced various gait tasks, including: ambulation over the ground, going up and down stairs, and performing sit-to-stand transitions.

The BWSS with balance perturbations group conducted the same balance and gait activities as the control group, including: marching, side-stepping, retro-ambulation, step-taps, step-ups, ambulation over the ground, going up and down stairs, and performing sit-to-stand transitions.In addition, this arm will receive eight balance perturbations, two in each direction (lateral, anterior, and posterior) each session. BWSS-P participants will start at perturbation level one and progress up to level ten as appropriate. Each session, the perturbation level will be set based on the participant's progress.

Sponsors

Gaylord Hospital, Inc
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Masking description

Participants and care providers are unable to be masked to the intervention arm due to the nature of the study. As data was extracted, investigators were unable to blind the data prior to exporting.

Intervention model description

Quasi-randomized controlled pilot study evaluating the efficacy of a recently developed, not yet reported, balance perturbation module for the ZeroG body weight support system known Training Responses in Postural rehabilitation (TRiP).

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Admission Berg Balance Scale score of 21 or greater * 18 years of age or older * Be able to understand and respond to simple verbal instructions in any language * Be able to physically tolerate and actively participate in at least three, 30 minute weekly sessions in the ZeroG body weight support system

Exclusion criteria

* Cognitive deficits that would disrupt the ability to provide informed consent * Admission Berg Balance Scale score less than 21 * Uncontrolled hypotension * Uncontrolled hypertension * Unstable skin structure (i.e. skin grafts, chest tubes) * Unstable rib or lower extremity fractures * Osteoporosis * Active enteric infection control precautions * New limb amputations * Need for greater than 50% high flow oxygen * Body weight greater than 450 pounds (structural limitations of the ZeroG body weight support system)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Difference in Berg Balance Scale Pre-intervention and Post-intervention Assessment ScoresThe pre-assessment Berg Balance Scale score was collected during the initial physical therapy assessment within 48 hours of admission, as part of their normal care. The post-assessment was collected within 24 hours prior to discharge.The Berg Balance Scale is a standardized objective measure of a subject/participant's balance. It is scored on a scale of 0 to 56, with 56 being the best score possible. Admission and discharge Berg scores are collected from a chart review within 48 hours of participant discharge. The change in Berg score is calculated by subtracting the participants admission or pre-assessment score from their discharge or post-assessment score: (Post assessment)-(Pre assessment)
Comparison of Berg Balance Scale Assessment Score ChangesThe pre-assessment Berg Balance Scale score was collected during the initial physical therapy assessment within 48 hours of admission, as part of their normal care. The post-assessment was collected within 24 hours prior to discharge.The Berg Balance Scale is a standardized objective measure of a subject/participant's balance. It is scored on a scale of 0 to 56, with 56 being the best score possible. Admission and discharge Berg scores are collected using from a chart review within 48 hours of participant discharge. The change in Berg score is calculated by subtracting the participants admission or pre-assessment score from their discharge or post-assessment score: (Post assessment) - (Pre assessment). The score change between groups was then compared between the two treatment groups
Differences in the Percent Change of Berg Balance Scale (BBS) Assessment ScoresThe pre-assessment Berg Balance Scale score was collected during the initial physical therapy assessment within 48 hours of admission, as part of their normal care. The post-assessment was collected within 24 hours prior to discharge.The Berg Balance Scale is a standardized objective measure of a subject/participant's balance. It is scored on a scale of 0 to 56, with 56 being the best score possible. Admission and discharge Berg scores are collected using from a chart review within 48 hours of participant discharge. The BBS percent change is calculated using the following formula: \[((Post assessement)-(Pre assessment))/(Pre assessment)\] ×100%
Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale Score ChangeThe pre-assessment ABC is completed at participant enrollment just prior to first intervention. The post-assessment ABC is completed immediately after final intervention.The ABC Scale subjectively measures a person's self-perceived balance-confidence to perform various tasks without losing balance or experiencing a sense of unsteadiness; it is based on a rating scale from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (completely confident); higher the score the better.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Ambulation ScoreThe pre-assessment Ambulation score is collected during the initial occupational therapy assessment within 48 hours of admission, as part of their normal care. The post-assessment is collected within 24 hours prior to discharge.During their regular treatment, a modified functional independence measure, based on a scale of 0 (completely dependent) to 10 (completely independent), was used to assess each participant's assistance needs while ambulating. These scores were collected during a chart review conducted within 48 hours after participant discharge.
Perturbation Level ProgressionPerturbation level recordings completed for each of the 8 sessions completed over an average of 2 weeks.All participants started at perturbation level one and progressed up to a maximum perturbation level of ten through the course of the study; the higher the level,the more intense the exerted force. The amount of force exerted at each perturbation level is pre-set by the manufacturer.The highest perturbation level achieved by the participant achieved was recorded immediately after each intervention session. In total, 8 readings were collected for each BWSS-P participant for the 8 intervention sessions completed for the study.
Toilet Transfer ScoreThe pre-assessment Toilet transfer score is collected during the initial occupational therapy assessment within 48 hours of admission, as part of their normal care. The post-assessment is collected within 24 hours prior to discharge.During their regular treatment, a modified functional independence measure, based on a scale of 0 (completely dependent) to 10 (completely independent), was used to assess each participant's assistance needs while undergoing toilet transfers. These scores were collected during a chart review conducted within 48 hours after participant discharge.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Recruitment occurred over 12 months, from October 2019 through September 2020. Participants were recruited from patients admitted to the inpatient stroke rehabilitation program at Gaylord Hospital after receiving a stroke diagnosis at a regional acute care hospital.

Pre-assignment details

To be initially considered, patients had to be classified as a Moderate fall risk or better, shown by a Berg Balance Scale score of 21 or greater during their initial physical therapy evaluation. Patients who did not initially meet this criteria could screen-in at a later time pending a BBS reassessment. If the reassessment showed a sufficient functional improvement, and the patient had a discharge date of greater than two-weeks after the reassessment, the patient was recruited for the study.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Body Weight Support System Control Group
In this arm, participants will undergo their normal physical therapy treatment while using the ZeroG body weight support system. Body weight support system control group: The BWSS control group interventions consisted of various balance activities, including: marching, side-stepping, retro-ambulation, step-taps, and step-ups. The BWSS control group also practiced various gait tasks, including: ambulation over the ground, going up and down stairs, and performing sit-to-stand transitions.
16
Body Weight Support System With Balance Perturbations
Similar to the control group arm, participants will undergo their normal physical therapy treatment while using the ZeroG body weight support system, with the inclusion of 8 total balance perturbations each session, including 2 in the posterior, anterior, left lateral, and right lateral directions. Body weight support system with balance perturbations: The BWSS with balance perturbations group conducted the same balance and gait activities as the control group, including: marching, side-stepping, retro-ambulation, step-taps, step-ups, ambulation over the ground, going up and down stairs, and performing sit-to-stand transitions.In addition, this arm will receive eight balance perturbations, two in each direction (lateral, anterior, and posterior) each session. BWSS-P participants will start at perturbation level one and progress up to level ten as appropriate. Each session, the perturbation level will be set based on the participant's progress.
16
Total32

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAcute ankle sprain after session 101
Overall StudyEarly participant discharge from rehabilitation program after session 410
Overall StudyFlare-up of existing orthopedic condition after session 401

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTotalBody Weight Support System Control GroupBody Weight Support System With Balance Perturbations
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
11 Participants5 Participants6 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
21 Participants11 Participants10 Participants
Age, Continuous58.56 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.9
58.38 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.71
58.75 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.43
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
32 participants16 participants16 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
7 Participants3 Participants4 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
25 Participants13 Participants12 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 160 / 16
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 162 / 16
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 160 / 16

Outcome results

Primary

Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale Score Change

The ABC Scale subjectively measures a person's self-perceived balance-confidence to perform various tasks without losing balance or experiencing a sense of unsteadiness; it is based on a rating scale from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (completely confident); higher the score the better.

Time frame: The pre-assessment ABC is completed at participant enrollment just prior to first intervention. The post-assessment ABC is completed immediately after final intervention.

Population: One participant in the Control group was discharged prior to completing the ABC post-assessment, resulting in an n=14.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Pre-score)Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale Score Change20.57 Score on a Scale
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Post-score)Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale Score Change20.96 Score on a Scale
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.p-value: =0.9568t-test, 2 sided
Primary

Comparison of Berg Balance Scale Assessment Score Changes

The Berg Balance Scale is a standardized objective measure of a subject/participant's balance. It is scored on a scale of 0 to 56, with 56 being the best score possible. Admission and discharge Berg scores are collected using from a chart review within 48 hours of participant discharge. The change in Berg score is calculated by subtracting the participants admission or pre-assessment score from their discharge or post-assessment score: (Post assessment) - (Pre assessment). The score change between groups was then compared between the two treatment groups

Time frame: The pre-assessment Berg Balance Scale score was collected during the initial physical therapy assessment within 48 hours of admission, as part of their normal care. The post-assessment was collected within 24 hours prior to discharge.

Population: The data from the 15 subjects from the BWSS control group and the 14 subjects from the BWSS-P who completed the study and were not withdrawn early, were included in this analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Pre-score)Comparison of Berg Balance Scale Assessment Score Changes15.07 Score on a Scale
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Post-score)Comparison of Berg Balance Scale Assessment Score Changes17.86 Score on a Scale
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.p-value: =0.3045t-test, 2 sided
Primary

Difference in Berg Balance Scale Pre-intervention and Post-intervention Assessment Scores

The Berg Balance Scale is a standardized objective measure of a subject/participant's balance. It is scored on a scale of 0 to 56, with 56 being the best score possible. Admission and discharge Berg scores are collected from a chart review within 48 hours of participant discharge. The change in Berg score is calculated by subtracting the participants admission or pre-assessment score from their discharge or post-assessment score: (Post assessment)-(Pre assessment)

Time frame: The pre-assessment Berg Balance Scale score was collected during the initial physical therapy assessment within 48 hours of admission, as part of their normal care. The post-assessment was collected within 24 hours prior to discharge.

Population: The data from the 15 subjects from the BWSS control group and the 14 subjects from the BWSS-P who completed the study and were not withdrawn early, were included in this analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Pre-score)Difference in Berg Balance Scale Pre-intervention and Post-intervention Assessment Scores30.20 Score on a Scale
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Post-score)Difference in Berg Balance Scale Pre-intervention and Post-intervention Assessment Scores45.27 Score on a Scale
Body Weight Support System With Balance Perturbations (BBS Pre-score)Difference in Berg Balance Scale Pre-intervention and Post-intervention Assessment Scores30.43 Score on a Scale
Body Weight Support System With Balance Perturbations (BBS Post-score)Difference in Berg Balance Scale Pre-intervention and Post-intervention Assessment Scores48.29 Score on a Scale
Comparison: Null hypothesis for this analysis is that there will be no differences between pre-scores and post-scores across the different treatment arms. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.p-value: <0.0001Kruskal-Wallis
Comparison: Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.p-value: =0.0025Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Comparison: Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.p-value: =0.0001Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Comparison: Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.p-value: >0.9999Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Comparison: Null hypothesis for this comparison would be that there would be no significant difference between post-scores of the two treatment groups.p-value: >0.9999Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Primary

Differences in the Percent Change of Berg Balance Scale (BBS) Assessment Scores

The Berg Balance Scale is a standardized objective measure of a subject/participant's balance. It is scored on a scale of 0 to 56, with 56 being the best score possible. Admission and discharge Berg scores are collected using from a chart review within 48 hours of participant discharge. The BBS percent change is calculated using the following formula: \[((Post assessement)-(Pre assessment))/(Pre assessment)\] ×100%

Time frame: The pre-assessment Berg Balance Scale score was collected during the initial physical therapy assessment within 48 hours of admission, as part of their normal care. The post-assessment was collected within 24 hours prior to discharge.

Population: The data from the 15 subjects from the BWSS control group and the 14 subjects from the BWSS-P who completed the study and were not withdrawn early, were included in this analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Pre-score)Differences in the Percent Change of Berg Balance Scale (BBS) Assessment Scores53.29 Percent Change
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Post-score)Differences in the Percent Change of Berg Balance Scale (BBS) Assessment Scores66.95 Percent Change
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.p-value: =3152Two-Tailed Welch t test
Secondary

Ambulation Score

During their regular treatment, a modified functional independence measure, based on a scale of 0 (completely dependent) to 10 (completely independent), was used to assess each participant's assistance needs while ambulating. These scores were collected during a chart review conducted within 48 hours after participant discharge.

Time frame: The pre-assessment Ambulation score is collected during the initial occupational therapy assessment within 48 hours of admission, as part of their normal care. The post-assessment is collected within 24 hours prior to discharge.

Population: The data from the 15 subjects from the BWSS control group and the 14 subjects from the BWSS-P who completed the study and were not withdrawn early, were included in this analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Pre-score)Ambulation Score4.357 Units on a Scale
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Post-score)Ambulation Score7.800 Units on a Scale
Body Weight Support System With Balance Perturbations (BBS Pre-score)Ambulation Score4.750 Units on a Scale
Body Weight Support System With Balance Perturbations (BBS Post-score)Ambulation Score8.643 Units on a Scale
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.p-value: <0.0001Kruskal-Wallis
p-value: <0.0001Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: <0.0001Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: >0.9999Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: >0.9999Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Secondary

Perturbation Level Progression

All participants started at perturbation level one and progressed up to a maximum perturbation level of ten through the course of the study; the higher the level,the more intense the exerted force. The amount of force exerted at each perturbation level is pre-set by the manufacturer.The highest perturbation level achieved by the participant achieved was recorded immediately after each intervention session. In total, 8 readings were collected for each BWSS-P participant for the 8 intervention sessions completed for the study.

Time frame: Perturbation level recordings completed for each of the 8 sessions completed over an average of 2 weeks.

Population: This outcome only includes observations from the BWSS-P group as the BWSS control did not receive perturbations. Values for each of the 8 study sessions are shown. The perturbation level for the 6th session for one subject was not recorded and was left blank.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Pre-score)Perturbation Level Progression1.857 Perturbation Level
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Post-score)Perturbation Level Progression3.143 Perturbation Level
Body Weight Support System With Balance Perturbations (BBS Pre-score)Perturbation Level Progression4.429 Perturbation Level
Body Weight Support System With Balance Perturbations (BBS Post-score)Perturbation Level Progression4.929 Perturbation Level
BWSS-P (Perturbation Level Progression) Session 5Perturbation Level Progression5.571 Perturbation Level
BWSS-P (Perturbation Level Progression) Session 6Perturbation Level Progression6.077 Perturbation Level
BWSS-P (Perturbation Level Progression) Session 7Perturbation Level Progression6.5 Perturbation Level
BWSS-P (Perturbation Level Progression) Session 8Perturbation Level Progression6.875 Perturbation Level
p-value: =0.6497Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: =0.0743Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: =0.0198Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Comparison: Null hypothesis is there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, normality testing was conducted using a Shapiro-Wild test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.p-value: <0.0001Kruskal-Wallis
Comparison: Null hypothesis for any comparisons would be that there is no significant mean perturbation level between sessions.p-value: >0.9999Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: =0.0629Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: =0.0069Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: =0.0003Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: <0.0001Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: <0.0001Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: <0.0001Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: =0.0017Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: =0.0006Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: =0.5297Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
p-value: =0.2595Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Secondary

Toilet Transfer Score

During their regular treatment, a modified functional independence measure, based on a scale of 0 (completely dependent) to 10 (completely independent), was used to assess each participant's assistance needs while undergoing toilet transfers. These scores were collected during a chart review conducted within 48 hours after participant discharge.

Time frame: The pre-assessment Toilet transfer score is collected during the initial occupational therapy assessment within 48 hours of admission, as part of their normal care. The post-assessment is collected within 24 hours prior to discharge.

Population: The data from the 15 subjects from the BWSS control group and the 14 subjects from the BWSS-P who completed the study and were not withdrawn early, were included in this analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Pre-score)Toilet Transfer Score4.300 Score on a Scale
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Post-score)Toilet Transfer Score7.7 Score on a Scale
Body Weight Support System With Balance Perturbations (BBS Pre-score)Toilet Transfer Score4.893 Score on a Scale
Body Weight Support System With Balance Perturbations (BBS Post-score)Toilet Transfer Score8.393 Score on a Scale
Comparison: Null Hypothesis, there would be no difference between the pre-score and post-score of each treatment group. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.p-value: <0.0001Kruskal-Wallis
Comparison: Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.p-value: <0.0001Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Comparison: Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.p-value: <0.0001Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Comparison: Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.p-value: >0.9999Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Comparison: Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.p-value: >0.9999Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test
Post Hoc

Sex Differences Between Treatment Arms

The proportion of males and females between treatment arms was evaluated

Time frame: This was conducted after the recruitment of the final participant.

Population: This analysis was completed using the information from the participants who completed the study.

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Pre-score)Sex Differences Between Treatment ArmsMales13 Participants
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Pre-score)Sex Differences Between Treatment ArmsFemale2 Participants
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Post-score)Sex Differences Between Treatment ArmsMales10 Participants
Body Weight Support System Control Group (BBS Post-score)Sex Differences Between Treatment ArmsFemale4 Participants
Comparison: Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of males and females between treatment arms.p-value: =0.389895% CI: [0.4671, 15.3]Fisher Exact

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 13, 2026