Walking velocity and distance. Six studies considered
the mean distance and velocity achieved during a
6MWT showing a range from 47 to 129 m and 0.22 to
0.36 m/s, respectively (6, 17–20, 22) (Appendix I). Six
studies considered the velocity required to complete
a 10MWT (Appendix II), ranging from 0.25 to 0.38
m/s across 4 studies (17, 18, 20, 21). The remaining 2
studies indicated that different injury levels can affect
walking velocity (22), as can the level of assistance
provided while walking (23).
Cardiovascular demand. Four studies considered HR
measures across the intervention (Table II), where no
significant changes were found (2, 13, 14, 20). Three
other studies, in addition to studies by Bach Bauns-
gaard et al. (13) and Spungen et al. (20), considered HR
changes within an exercise session. HR was reported
to be highest during walking, compared with that of
sitting or standing, and post-walking HR was higher
than pre- or mid-walking HR (6, 7, 13, 24). Spungen et
al. (20) determined HR to be highest during a 6MWT
compared with other phases of the session. Four studies
727
considered BP changes with exoskeleton walking (Ta-
ble II). Two of the studies found a significant increase
in BP from pre to post session (7, 24). However, Bach
Baunsgaard et al. (13) found no change in BP within
the session or across the intervention. Spungen et al.
(20) also found no changes in BP across the walking
intervention.
Six studies investigated changes in RPE (Table II).
Two studies showed a significant decrease in walking
RPE from baseline to post-intervention (13, 20). The
other 2 studies showed no significant changes in RPE
across walking sessions (15, 16). Two studies demon-
strated that RPE within a session increased post- com-
pared with pre-walk (6, 24).
Spasticity and pain. Five studies considered spasticity
measures (Table III), 2 studies used clinical measures
only (7, 25), while the other 3 considered both clinical
and subjective ratings (2, 18, 26). Of those presenting
clinical measures, 2 found significant improvements
in spasticity from pre to post walking (7, 26), one
showed reduced spasticity across the intervention
Robotic locomotor training in rehabilitation
Fig. 2. Effect of robotic locomotor training on 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance (m) using a random effects model. Standardized mean difference
–0.94 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) –1.53,–0.36; I 2 =27%; p = 0.002).
Fig. 3. Effect of robotic locomotor training on 10-metre walk test (10MWT) speed using a random effects model. Standardized mean difference
–1.22 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) –1.87,–0.57; I 2 = 60%; p = 0.0002).
Fig. 4. Effect of robotic locomotor training on the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) time (in s) using a random effects model. Standardized mean
difference 0.74 (95% CI 0.36, 1.11; I 2 = 0%, p = 0.0001).
J Rehabil Med 51, 2019