Table 2: Descriptive analysis of the included studies.

PopulationInterventionComparisonOutcome
Participants in experimental groupParticipants in control groupTraining frequencyIntervention groupControl groupGait & gait-related activities results

Hesse et al., 2012 [15], 9 F/6 M
Age: 63.7 ± 9.4
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 4/11
Side of hemiplegia:
6 L/14 R
Weeks after stroke:  5.7 ± 2.3
, 9 F/6 M
Age: 66.4 ± 11.9
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 5/110
Side of hemiplegia:
6 L/14 R
Weeks after stroke:  (week):  5.1 ± 1.6
60 min/session, for 4 week
(total 20 sessions and 10 hours RAGT)
30 min of robot-assisted gait and stair climbing training (G-EO system) + 30 min physiotherapy60 min of conventional physiotherapy gait and stair climbing therapy(1) Within groups: significant in FAC, gait velocity, RMI in both groups during intervention and follow-up
(2) Between groups: significant in FAC between groups after intervention

Morone et al., 2012 [16](HM)
Age: 68.33 ± 9.11
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 9/3
Side of hemiplegia:
8 L/4 R
Days after stroke:   Mean of 20 days
(LM)
Age: 55.58 ± 13.35
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 9/3
Side of hemiplegia:
3 L/9 R
Days after stroke:   Mean of 20 days
(HM)
Age: 62.92 ± 17.43
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 12/0
Side of hemiplegia:
4 L/8 R
Days after stroke:
Mean of 20 days
(LM)
Age: 60.17 ± 9.59
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 11/1
Side of hemiplegia:
5 L/7 R
Days after stroke:  Mean of 20 days
2 sessions/day, 5 days/week, for 4 weeks
(total 20 sessions and 10 hours RAGT)
Robotic-assisted gait training (gait trainer) + conventional therapyConventional gait training(1) Between groups: significant in FAC, BI, RMI between 2 LM groups
(2) Between groups: no significance between the 2 HM groups

Chang et al., 2012 [3], 13 M/7 F
Age: 55.5 ± 12.0
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 8/12
side of hemiplegia: 6 R/14 L
Days after stroke:  16.1 ± 4.9
, 10 M/7 F
Age: 59.7 ± 12.1
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 6/11
side of hemiplegia: 6 R/11 L
Days after stroke:  18.2 ± 5.0
2 sessions/day, 5 day/week for 2 weeks (total 20 sessions and 13.3 hours RAGT)40 min gait training (Lokomat) + 60 min conventional physical therapy100 min conventional physical therapy(1) Between groups: both groups not significant in FAC

Dragin et al., 2014 [4], 9 M/2 F
Age: 57.3 ± 10.9
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 2/9
Side of hemiplegia:
5 L/6 R
Days after stroke:  38 ± 21
, 9 M/2 F
Age: 58.1 ± 11.4
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 1/10
Side of hemiplegia:
7 L/4 R
Days after stroke:  36 ± 21
30 min/session, 5 sessions/week, for 4 weeks
(total 20 sessions and 10 hours RAGT)
Walked assisted by Walkaround at a pace in a range from 0.3 to 0.7 m/sWalk at their natural pace and use conventional gait assistance (cane, physical therapist assistance)(1) Within groups: significant for the BBS after 6 months in both groups and in gait speed among the Exp group at the end of therapy and after 6 months
(2) Between groups: significant for the gait speed and BBS after 4 weeks and in gait speed after 6 months between groups

Van Nunen et al., 2015 [17], 10 M/6 F
Age: 50.0 ± 9.6
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 9/7
Side of stroke: 5 R/11 L
Days after stroke:  61.6 ± 28.7
, 5 M/8 F
Age: 56.0 ± 8.7
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 10/4
Side of stroke: 5 R/9 L
Days after stroke:  67.1 ± 49.1
3.5 h/week, for 8 weeks
(total 16 hours RAGT)
Lokomat (2 h) + conventional therapy (1.5 h) a week aimed at improving walking abilityConventional therapy (3.5 h) of physical therapy a week aimed at improving walking ability(1) Within groups: significant for walking speed, FAC, BBS, RMI, TUG after training and follow-up in both groups
(2) Between groups: no significant differences in improvements in any of the variables between groups

Ochi et al., 2015 [18], 11 M/2 F
Age: 61.8 ± 7.5
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 8/5
Side of hemiplegia:
7 R/6 L
Days after stroke:  22.9 ± 7.4
, 9 M/4 F
Age: 65.5 ± 12.1
Diagnosis (hemorrhage/ischemic): 8/5
Side of hemiplegia:
8 R/5 L
Days after stroke:  26.1 ± 8.0
80 min/session, 5 sessions/week for 4 weeks
(total 20 sessions and 6.7 hours RAGT)
20 min of GAR-assisted gait training + 60 min of standard physical therapy20 min of overground conventional gait training + 60 min of standard physical therapy(1) Within groups: significant for FAC and FIM after training in both groups
(2) Between groups: significant group difference in improvement in FAC after training

Taveggia et al., 2016 [19], 7 M/6 F
Age: 71 ± 5
Days after stroke:  60.1 ± 49.5
, 10 M/5 F
Age: 73 ± 7
Days after stroke:  39.4 ± 31.7
90 min/day, 5 days/week, for 5 weeks
(total 12.5 hours RAGT)
Bobath approach (60 min) + robotic gait training on the Lokomat robotic system (30 min)Bobath approach (60 min) + activities targeted at improvement in walking (30 min)(1) Within group: significant increase in TWT at the end of the treatment and follow-up in experimental group
(2) Between groups: no significant differences in improvements in any of the variables between groups

Con: control group. Exp: experimental group. FAC: functional ambulation classification. RMI: Rivermead mobility index. HM: high Motricity. LM: low Motricity. BI: Barthel index. BBS: Berg balance scale. TWT: 10 m walking test. TUG: timed up and go. 6 MWT: 6 m walk test. FIM: functional independence measure. RAGT: robot assisted gait training.