Effect of robotic-assisted gait training on objective biomechanical measures of gait in persons post-stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 4 Evaluated spatial, symmetry and kinematic gait parameters and results of the included studies

Type of outcome	Velocity during assessment	Parameter	Bang 2016	Buesing 2015	Calabró 2018	Geroin 2011	Hornby 2008	Ogino 2020	Lee 2019	Lewek 2009	Srivastava 2016	Tanaka 2019	Westlake 2009
Spatial parameters	SSV	Step length (impaired side)	R^/^^ (p = .03)	R (p = .05)				NR
		Step length (non-impaired side)		X				NR
		Stride length		X				NR	R (p = .01)	X
	FV	Step length (impaired side)		X								X
		Step length (non-impaired side)		X								X
		Stride length		X
Symmetry evaluations	SSV	Temporal symmetry		X	R (p = .00)				R (p = .03)
		Spatial symmetry		X			X		R (p = .04)				X
	FV	Temporal symmetry		X		R (p = .02)
		Spatial symmetry		C (p = .05)			X					X	X
Kinematic parameters	SV	Hip, knee and ankle joint angles									X
Kinematic parameters		Relation between ankle and hip joint position (circumduction)								X
		Abnormal gait pattern ~						NR

X = No differences between groups; R = Significant difference between groups favouring robotic-assisted gait training; C = Significant difference between groups favouring the comparator group (non-robotic gait training); NR = No reporting of between-group analyses; SSV = Self Selected Velocity; FV = Fastest Velocity
^Velocity not specified in the study
^^No information on which side has been analysed (affected or non-affected)
^~Investigated gait patterns were: circumduction, retropulsion of the hip, excessive hip external rotation, knee extensor thrust, flexed-knee gait, insufficient knee flexion during swing phase, forefoot contact, medial whip, excessive lateral shift of the trunk over the unaffected side

ISSN: 1743-0003