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
. 2025 May 14;5(5):CD006185.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub6.

Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke

Jan Mehrholz et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Rationale: Walking difficulties are common after a stroke. During rehabilitation, electromechanical and robotic gait-training devices can help improve walking. As the evidence and certainty of the evidence may have changed since our last update in 2020, we aimed to update the scientific evidence on the benefits and acceptability of these technologies to ensure they remain a viable option for stroke rehabilitation.

Objectives: Primary • To determine whether electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care) improves walking in adults after stroke. Secondary • To determine whether electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care) after stroke improves walking velocity, walking capacity, acceptability, and death from all causes until the end of the intervention phase.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases. We handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, checked reference lists, and contacted trial authors to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. The date of the latest search was December 2023.

Eligibility criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials and randomised controlled cross-over trials in people over the age of 18 years diagnosed with stroke of any severity, at any stage, in any setting, evaluating electromechanical- and robot-assisted gait training versus physiotherapy (or usual care).

Outcomes: Our critical outcome was the ability to walk independently, measured with the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC). An FAC score of 4 or 5 indicated independent walking over a 15-metre surface, irrespective of aids used, such as a cane. An FAC score less than 4 indicates dependency in walking (supervision or assistance, or both, must be given in performing walking). Important outcomes included walking velocity and capacity, as well as dropouts.

Risk of bias: We used Cochrane's RoB 1 tool.

Synthesis methods: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We used random-effects models for the meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Included studies: We included 101 studies (39 new studies plus 62 studies from previous versions) with a total of 4224 participants after stroke in our review update.

Synthesis of results: Electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy probably increases the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (odds ratio (OR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.25; P = 0.001; I² = 31%; 51 studies, 2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); probably does not increase mean walking velocity (mean difference (MD) 0.05 m/s, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.08; P < 0.001; I² = 58%; 73 studies, 3043 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and does not increase mean walking capacity (MD 11 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI 1.8 to 20.3; P = 0.02; I² = 43%; 42 studies, 1966 participants; high-certainty evidence). Electromechanical-assisted gait training does not increase or decrease the risk of loss to the study during the intervention or the risk of death from all causes (high-certainty evidence). At follow-up after study end, electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy may not increase the odds of participants becoming independent in walking (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.48; P = 0.20; I² = 69%; 8 studies, 569 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably does not increase mean walking velocity (MD 0.05 m/s, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13; P = 0.22; I² = 66%; 17 studies, 857 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or mean walking capacity (MD 9.6 metres walked in 6 minutes, 95% CI -14.6 to 33.7; P = 0.44; I² = 53%; 15 studies, 736 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Our results must be interpreted with caution because (1) some trials investigated people who were independent in walking at the start of the study; and (2) there was variation between trials with respect to the devices used and duration and frequency of treatment.

Authors' conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that people who receive electromechanical-assisted gait training in combination with physiotherapy after stroke are probably more likely to achieve independent walking than people who receive gait training without these devices.We concluded that nine patients need to be treated to prevent one dependency in walking. Further research should consist of large, definitive pragmatic phase 3 trials undertaken to address specific questions about the most effective frequency and duration of electromechanical-assisted gait training, as well as how long any benefit may last. Future trials should consider time poststroke in their trial design.

Funding: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

Registration: Protocol (2006): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185 Original review (2007): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub2 Review update (2013): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub3 Review update (2017): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub4 Review update (2020): doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006185.pub5.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Jan Mehrholz: was co‐author of two included trials (Gorsler 2024; Pohl 2007).

Joachim Kugler: none known.

Marcus Pohl: was a co‐author of one included trial (Pohl 2007).

Bernhard Elsner: none known.

These review authors (MP, JM) did not participate in quality assessment or data extraction for these studies.

Jan Mehrholz was a former co‐editor of the Cochrane Stroke Review Group. The author had no role in the editorial process of this review.

Update of

References

    1. World Health Organization. Cerebrovascular accident, stroke. www.who.int/topics/cerebrovascular_accident/en/ (accessed 1 February 2006).
    1. Adams HP Jr, Bendixen BH, Kappelle LJ, Biller J, Love BB, Gordon DL, et al. Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke: definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial (TOAST: Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment). Stroke 1993;24(1):35-41. - PubMed
    1. GBD 2016 Stroke Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurology 2019;18(5):439-58. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jorgensen H, Nakayama H, Raaschou H, Olsen T. Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen stroke study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1995;76:27-32. - PubMed
    1. Bohannon RW, Horton MG, Wikholm JB. Importance of four variables of walking to patients with stroke. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1991;14:246-50. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources