Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2014 Jan 23;2014(1):CD002840.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002840.pub3.

Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke

Jan Mehrholz  1 , Marcus Pohl, Bernhard Elsner
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke

Jan Mehrholz et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: Treadmill training, with or without body weight support using a harness, is used in rehabilitation and might help to improve walking after stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.

Objectives: To determine if treadmill training and body weight support, individually or in combination, improve walking ability, quality of life, activities of daily living, dependency or death, and institutionalisation or death, compared with other physiotherapy gait training interventions after stroke. The secondary objective was to determine the safety and acceptability of this method of gait training.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched June 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2013), EMBASE (1980 to July 2013), CINAHL (1982 to June 2013), AMED (1985 to July 2013) and SPORTDiscus (1949 to June 2013). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings and ongoing trials and research registers, screened reference lists and contacted trialists to identify further trials.

Selection criteria: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled and cross-over trials of treadmill training and body weight support, individually or in combination, for the treatment of walking after stroke.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. The primary outcomes investigated were walking speed, endurance and dependency.

Main results: We included 44 trials with 2658 participants in this updated review. Overall, the use of treadmill training with body weight support did not increase the chances of walking independently compared with other physiotherapy interventions (risk difference (RD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.02; P = 0.94; I² = 0%). Overall, the use of treadmill training with body weight support in walking rehabilitation for patients after stroke increased the walking velocity and walking endurance significantly. The pooled mean difference (MD) (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.07 m/s (95% CI 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.02; I² = 57%) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 26.35 metres (95% CI 2.51 to 50.19; P = 0.03; I² = 60%). Overall, the use of treadmill training with body weight support in walking rehabilitation for patients after stroke did not increase the walking velocity and walking endurance at the end of scheduled follow-up significantly. The pooled MD (random-effects model) for walking velocity was 0.04 m/s (95% CI -0.06 to 0.14; P = 0.40; I² = 40%) and the pooled MD for walking endurance was 32.36 metres (95% CI -3.10 to 67.81; P = 0.07; I² = 63%). However, for ambulatory patients improvements in walking endurance lasted until the end of scheduled follow-up (MD 58.88 metres, 95% CI 29.10 to 88.66; P = 0.0001; I² = 0%). Adverse events and drop outs did not occur more frequently in people receiving treadmill training and these were not judged to be clinically serious events.

Authors' conclusions: Overall, people after stroke who receive treadmill training with or without body weight support are not more likely to improve their ability to walk independently compared with people after stroke not receiving treadmill training, but walking speed and walking endurance may improve. Specifically, stroke patients who are able to walk (but not people who are not able to walk) appear to benefit most from this type of intervention. This review found that improvements in walking endurance in people able to walk may have persisting beneficial effects. Further research should specifically investigate the effects of different frequencies, durations or intensities (in terms of speed increments and inclination) of treadmill training, as well as the use of handrails, in ambulatory patients, but not in dependent walkers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Marcus Pohl and Jan Mehrholz were authors of one included trial (Pohl 2002). They did not participate in quality assessment and data extraction for this study.

No other potential conflicts of interest are known.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Treadmill (with or without body weight support) versus other intervention, outcome: 1.1 Walking speed (m/s) at end of treatment phase.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Treadmill (with or without body weight support) versus other intervention, outcome: 1.2 Walking endurance (m) at end of treatment.
Analysis 1.1
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Treadmill (with or without body weight support) versus other intervention, Outcome 1 Walking speed (m/s) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 1.2
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 Treadmill (with or without body weight support) versus other intervention, Outcome 2 Walking endurance (m) at end of treatment.
Analysis 2.1
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 Treadmill and body weight support versus other interventions, Outcome 1 Dependence on personal assistance to walk at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 2.2
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 Treadmill and body weight support versus other interventions, Outcome 2 Walking speed (m/s) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 2.3
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 Treadmill and body weight support versus other interventions, Outcome 3 Walking endurance (m) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 2.4
Analysis 2.4
Comparison 2 Treadmill and body weight support versus other interventions, Outcome 4 Dependence on personal assistance to walk at end of scheduled follow‐up.
Analysis 2.5
Analysis 2.5
Comparison 2 Treadmill and body weight support versus other interventions, Outcome 5 Walking speed (m/s) at end of scheduled follow‐up.
Analysis 2.6
Analysis 2.6
Comparison 2 Treadmill and body weight support versus other interventions, Outcome 6 Walking endurance (m) at end of scheduled follow‐up.
Analysis 3.1
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 Treadmill training versus other interventions, Outcome 1 Walking speed (m/s) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 3.2
Analysis 3.2
Comparison 3 Treadmill training versus other interventions, Outcome 2 Walking endurance (m) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 4.1
Analysis 4.1
Comparison 4 Treadmill and body weight support versus treadmill only, Outcome 1 Dependence on personal assistance to walk at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 4.2
Analysis 4.2
Comparison 4 Treadmill and body weight support versus treadmill only, Outcome 2 Walking speed (m/s) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 4.3
Analysis 4.3
Comparison 4 Treadmill and body weight support versus treadmill only, Outcome 3 Walking endurance (m) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 4.4
Analysis 4.4
Comparison 4 Treadmill and body weight support versus treadmill only, Outcome 4 Dependence on personal assistance to walk at end of scheduled follow‐up.
Analysis 4.5
Analysis 4.5
Comparison 4 Treadmill and body weight support versus treadmill only, Outcome 5 Walking speed (m/s) at end of scheduled follow‐up.
Analysis 4.6
Analysis 4.6
Comparison 4 Treadmill and body weight support versus treadmill only, Outcome 6 Walking endurance (m) at end of scheduled follow‐up.
Analysis 5.1
Analysis 5.1
Comparison 5 Adverse events for all included trials, Outcome 1 Adverse events during the treatment phase.
Analysis 6.1
Analysis 6.1
Comparison 6 Drop outs for all included trials, Outcome 1 Drop outs.
Analysis 7.1
Analysis 7.1
Comparison 7 Sensitivity analysis: by trial methodology (all trials involving treadmill training), Outcome 1 Walking speed.
Analysis 8.1
Analysis 8.1
Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis: treadmill (with or without body weight support) versus other, by duration of illness (independent in walking only), Outcome 1 Walking speed (m/s) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 8.2
Analysis 8.2
Comparison 8 Subgroup analysis: treadmill (with or without body weight support) versus other, by duration of illness (independent in walking only), Outcome 2 Walking endurance (m) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 9.1
Analysis 9.1
Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis: treadmill (with or without body weight support) versus other, by intensity (frequency) of training (independent in walking only), Outcome 1 Walking speed (m/s) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 9.2
Analysis 9.2
Comparison 9 Subgroup analysis: treadmill (with or without body weight support) versus other, by intensity (frequency) of training (independent in walking only), Outcome 2 Walking endurance (m) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 10.1
Analysis 10.1
Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis: treadmill (with or without body weight support) versus other, by duration of training period (independent in walking only), Outcome 1 Walking speed (m/s) at end of treatment phase.
Analysis 10.2
Analysis 10.2
Comparison 10 Subgroup analysis: treadmill (with or without body weight support) versus other, by duration of training period (independent in walking only), Outcome 2 Walking endurance (m) at end of treatment phase.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

    1. Ada L, Dean C, Crompton S, Hall J, Bampton J. The efficacy of treadmill training in improving walking in individuals after stroke in the community: a placebo‐controlled, randomised trial. Proceedings of the VIIth International Physiotherapy Congress. Sydney: Australian Physiotherapy Association, 2002:61.
    2. Ada L, Dean C, Hall J, Bampton J, Crompton S. A treadmill and overground walking program improves walking in individuals residing in the community after stroke: a placebo‐controlled, randomised trial (abstract). Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of The World Confederation for Physical Therapy. Spain, Barcelona. 2003:RR‐PL‐1170.
    3. Ada L, Dean C, Morris M. The efficacy of treadmill training in establishing walking after stroke (NCT00167531) (protocol). ClinicalTrials.gov.2002.
    4. Ada L, Dean CM, Hall JM, Bampton J, Crompton S. A treadmill and overground walking program improves walking in individuals residing in the community after stroke: a placebo‐controlled randomised trial (abstract). Internal Medicine Journal2004; Vol. 34, issue 1‐2:A7. - PubMed
    5. Ada L, Dean CM, Hall JM, Bampton J, Crompton S. A treadmill and overground walking program improves walking in persons residing in the community after stroke: a placebo‐controlled, randomized trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation2003; Vol. 84, issue 10:1486‐91. - PubMed
    1. Ada L, Dean C, Morris M. Establishing walking using treadmill training in non‐ambulatory patients during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: the MOBILISE trial. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2009;4 Suppl:2.
    2. Ada L, Dean C, Morris M, Simpson J, Katrak P. Establishing walking using treadmill walking with body weight support in subacute non‐ambulatory stroke: the MOBILISE Trial I. International Journal of Stroke 2010;5:24‐5.
    3. Ada L, Dean CM, Morris ME. Supported treadmill training to establish walking in non‐ambulatory patients early after stroke (protocol). BMC Neurology 2007;7:29. - PMC - PubMed
    4. Ada L, Dean CM, Morris ME, Simpson JM, Katrak P. Randomized trial of treadmill walking with body weight support to establish walking in subacute stroke: the MOBILISE trial. Stroke 2010;41(6):1237‐42. - PubMed
    5. Dean C, Ada L, Bampton J, Morris M, Katrak P, Potts S. Improving walking speed and capacity using treadmill walking with body weight support in subacute non‐ambulatory stroke: the Mobilise trial II. International Journal of Stroke 2010;5:12‐3.
    6. Dean C, Ada L, Morris M. Improving walking using treadmill training in non‐ambulatory patients during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: the MOBILISE trial. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2009;4 Suppl:8.
    7. Dean CM, Ada L, Bampton J, Morris ME, Katrak PH, Potts S. Treadmill walking with body weight support in subacute non‐ambulatory stroke improves walking capacity more than overground walking: a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 2010;56(2):97‐103. - PubMed
    1. Ada L. AMBULATE: 2 months versus 4 months of walking training to improve community ambulation after stroke (ACTRN12607000227493) (protocol). Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) http://www.anzc...2007.
    2. Ada L, Dean C, Lindley R. Randomized trial of treadmill training to improve walking in community‐dwelling people after stroke: the AMBULATE trial. International Journal of Stroke 2013;8(6):436‐44. - PubMed
    3. Ada L, Dean CM, Lindley R, Lloyd G. Improving community ambulation after stroke: the AMBULATE trial (protocol). BMC Neurology 2009;9:8. - PMC - PubMed
    4. Ada L, Dean CM, Lindley R, Vargas J. Improving walking after stroke: The ambulate trial. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2012;26(6):674‐5.
    5. Lindley RI, Dean C, Ada L. Can treadmill training improve walking in the chronic phase of stroke? The AMBULATE randomised controlled trial. Cerebrovascular Diseases2012; Vol. 33, issue Suppl 2:61.
    1. Lim PAC, Henson H, Cunha I, Qureshy H, Monga TN, Protas EJ. Body weight‐supported gait training in stroke patients (abstract). American Journal of Physical Medicine 2000;79(2):203.
    2. Protas E. Stroke rehabilitation outcomes with supported treadmill ambulation training. ClinicalTrials.gov2003.
    3. Cunha Filho IT. Acute stroke rehabilitation outcomes with supported treadmill ambulation training. Texas Woman's University, PhD thesis2001. - PubMed
    4. Cunha Filho IT, Lim PA, Qureshy H, Henson H, Monga T, Protas EJ. Gait outcomes after acute stroke rehabilitation with supported treadmill ambulation training: a randomized controlled pilot study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002;83(9):1258‐65. - PubMed
    5. Cunha Filho IT, Lim PAC, Qureshy H, Henson H, Monga T, Protas EJ. A comparison of regular rehabilitation and regular rehabilitation with supported treadmill ambulation training for acute stroke patients. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2001;38(2):245‐55. - PubMed
    1. Deniz L, Armagan O, Ozgen M, Oner S. Effectiveness of gait training with partial body‐weight support in subacute stroke patients. [Turkish]. Turk Serebrovaskuler Hastaliklar Dergisi 2011;17(1):13‐9.

References to studies excluded from this review

    1. Aschbacher B. Comparing gait training in patients after stroke with task oriented physiotherapy or robot‐assisted treadmill training, a feasibility study. Unpublished presentation2006.
    1. Bayat R, Barbeau H, Lamontagne A. Speed and temporal‐distance adaptations during treadmill and overground walking following stroke. Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair 2005;2:115‐24. - PubMed
    1. Bleckert MG, Felder H, Grunebert C. Treadmill therapy in the acute rehabilitation stage in hemiparetic patients [German] [Laufbandtherapie in der akuten rehabilitationsphase bei patienten mit hemiparese. Pilotstudie zum vergleich lansamer und schneller ganggeschwindigkeiten]. Physioscience 2006;2(2):67‐72.
    1. Blennerhassett J, Dite W. A randomised controlled trial evaluating additional task‐related practice during stroke rehabilitation. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2003;49(4 Suppl):s6‐7. - PubMed
    2. Blennerhassett J, Dite W. Additional task‐related practice improves mobility and upper limb function early after stroke: a randomised controlled trial. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2004;50(4):219‐24. - PubMed
    1. Borsje S, Hochstenbach JBH, Postema K, Mulder TH. Clinical value of motor imagery and bodyweight supported treadmill training for recovery of gait performance of stroke patients in the early phase. Proceedings of the European Stroke Conference; 2003 May 21‐24. Valencia, Spain, 2003.

References to studies awaiting assessment

    1. Al‐Jarrah MD, Obaidat S. The impact of combined balance and treadmill exercise training on functional outcomes after chronic stroke. European Journal of Neurology 2011;18:440.
    1. Baer G. Treadmill training and sub‐acute stroke: a phase II feasibility study (abstract). Proceedings of the 3rd UK Stroke Forum Conference; Harrogate, UK. 2008:21.
    2. Baer G, Dennis M, Pitman J, Salisbury L, Smith M. Does treadmill training improve walking after stroke ‐ the long term follow‐up from a phase II randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Stroke 2009;4(Suppl 2):8.
    3. Salisbury L, Baer G, Dennis M, Pitman J, Smith M. Does treadmill training affect activities of daily living or quality of life after stroke? Results of a phase II randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Stroke 2009;4 Suppl 2:38. - PubMed
    4. Smith M, Baer G, Dennis M, Pitman J, Salisbury L. How feasible is the delivery of treadmill training early after stroke within the NHS: findings of a phase II randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Stroke 2009;4 Suppl 2:38. - PubMed
    5. Statt TC. Treadmill training in sub‐acute stroke: report of an ongoing phase II feasibility study of a complex intervention. Proceedings of the UK Stroke Forum Conference 2007; Harrogate, UK. 2007.
    1. Bartloff J, Bitting J, Lueke A, Sbertoli C, Sofen L, Walsh J, et al. After‐effects of slow isokinetic walk speed training on self‐selected gait velocity in persons with chronic post‐stroke hemiparesis. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy2009, issue 4.
    1. DePaul VG, Wishart LR. A comparison of two intensive walking training interventions in community dwelling individuals with history of stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov2006.
    2. DePaul VG, Wishart LR, Richardson J, Lee TD, Thabane L. Varied overground walking‐task practice versus body‐weight‐supported treadmill training in ambulatory adults within one year of stroke: a randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Neurology2011; Vol. 11:129. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Enhanced motor recovery using serotonergic agents in stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01751854 (accessed 2 September 2013).

References to ongoing studies

    1. Body weight supported treadmill training vs. overground walking training in persons with chronic stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01180738 (accessed 2 September 2013). - PubMed
    2. Combs SA, Tucker L, Harmeyer A, Ertel T, Colburn D, Parameswaran AK. Body weight‐supported treadmill training vs. over‐ground walking training for persons with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2012;93(10):e36.
    1. Improving community walking after a stroke, a new approach. www.controlled‐trials.com/ISRCTN50586966 (accessed 2 September 2013).
    1. Ankle robotics training after stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01337960 (accessed 2 September 2013).
    1. Visual cues for gait training post‐stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01600391 (accessed 2 September 2013).
    1. Very intensive early walking in stroke. ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01789853 (accessed 2 September 2013).

Additional references

    1. Barbeau H, Rossignol S. Recovery of locomotion after chronic spinalization in the adult cat. Brain Research 1987;412:84‐95. - PubMed
    1. Bobath B. Adult Hemiplegia: Evaluation and Treatment. 2nd Edition. London: Butterworth‐Heinemann, 1990.
    1. Brunnstrom S. Movement Therapy in Hemiplegia. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.
    1. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Physical Therapy 1985;65:175‐80. - PubMed
    1. Carr JH, Shepherd RB. Neurological Rehabilitation: Optimizing Motor Performance. Oxford: Butterworth‐Heinemann, 1998.

References to other published versions of this review

    1. Moseley A, Stark A, Cameron I, Pollock A. Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke: a systematic review. Proceedings of the 7th International Physiotherapy Congress 25‐28 May. Sydney, Australia: Australian Physiotherapy Association, 2002.
    1. Moseley AM, Stark A, Cameron ID, Pollock A. Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke. Stroke 2003;34(12):3006. - PubMed
    1. Moseley AM, Stark A, Cameron ID, Pollock A. Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke. Physiotherapy 2003;89(9):515. - PubMed
    1. Moseley AM, Stark A, Cameron ID, Pollock A. Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke: a Cochrane systematic review. Proceedings of the Stroke Society of Australasia 2003 Annual Scientific Meeting 17‐19 September. Sydney, Australia: Stroke Society of Australasia, 2003.
    1. Moseley AM, Stark A, Cameron ID, Pollock A. Treadmill training and body weight support for walking after stroke: a Cochrane systematic review. Proceedings of the Combined Australian Capital Territory Branch and New South Wales Branch of the Australian Physiotherapy Association Mini‐Conference 3 May. Sydney, Australia: Australian Physiotherapy Association, 2003.

Publication types