You are not logged in. Press here to login.


List volumes - List articles in this issue

Original report

Systematic review of outcome measures of walking training using electromechanical and robotic devices in patients with stroke

doi: 10.2340/16501977-1234

Open access


OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify appropriate selection criteria of clinical scales for future trials, starting from those most commonly reported in the literature, according to their psychometric properties and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains.
Data sources: A computerized literature research of articles was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINALH, PubMed, PsychINFO and Scopus databases.
Study selection: Clinical trials evaluating the effects of electromechanical and robot-assisted gait training trials in stroke survivors.
Data extraction: Fifteen independent authors performed an extensive literature review.
Data synthesis: A total of 45 scales was identified from 27 studies involving 966 subjects. The most commonly used outcome measures were: Functional Ambulation Category (18 studies), 10-Meter Walking Test (13 studies), Motricity Index (12 studies), 6-Minute Walking Test (11 studies), Rivermead Mobility Index (8 studies) and Berg Balance Scale (8 studies). According to the ICF domains 1 outcome measure was categorized into Body Function and Structure, 5 into Activity and none into Participation.
CONCLUSION: The most commonly used scales evaluated the basic components of walking. Future studies should also include instrumental evaluation. Criteria for scale selection should be based on the ICF framework, psychometric properties and patient characteristics.


Christian Geroin, Stefano Mazzoleni, Nicola Smania, Marialuisa Gandolfi, Donatella Bonaiuti, Giulio Gasperini, Patrizio Sale, Daniele Munari, Andreas Waldner, Raffaele Spidalieri, Federica Bovolenta, Alessandro Picelli, Federico Posteraro, Franco Molteni, Marco Franceschini, Italian Robotic Neurorehabilitation Research Group
Neuromotor and Cognitive Rehabilitation Research Centre (CRRNC), Department of Neurological and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy: E-mail:


1. Feigin VL, Lawes CM, Bennett DA, Anderson CS. Stroke epidemiology: a review of population-based studies of incidence, prevalence, and case-fatality in the late 20th century. Lancet Neurol 2003; 2: 43–53.

2. Stroke prevention and educational awareness diffusion (SPREAD). The Italian guidelines for stroke prevention and treatment. Milano: Ed. Hyperphar Group; 2012.

3. Patel MD, Tilling K, Lawrence E, Rudd AG, Wolfe CD, McKevitt C. Relationships between long-term stroke disability, handicap and health-related quality of life. Age Ageing 2006; 35: 273–279.

4. Mehrholz J, Werner C, Kugler J, Pohl M. Electromechanical-assisted training for walking after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; CD006185.

5. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet 2011; 14: 1693–1702.

6. Mazzoleni S, Dario P, Carrozza M. C, Guglielmelli E. Application of robotic and mechatronic systems to neurorehabilitation. In: Annalisa Milella Donato Di Paola, Grazia Cicirelli, editors. Mechatronic Systems Applications. Rijeka: Intech; 2010, p. 99–116.

7. Sivan M, O’Connor RJ, Makower S, Levesley M, Bhakta B. Systematic review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of robot-assisted upper limb exercise in stroke. J Rehabil Med 2011; 43: 181–189.

8. Mehrholz J, Wagner K, Rutte K, Meissner D, Pohl M. Predictive validity and responsiveness of the functional ambulation category in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 88: 1314–1319.

9. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Body Functions. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 191–207.

10. Barak S, Duncan PW. Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke. NeuroRx 2006; 3: 505–524.

11. Langhorne P, Coupar F, Pollock A. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 741–754.

12. Levin MF, Kleim JA, Wolf SL. What do motor “recovery” and “compensation” mean in patients following stroke? Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 313–319.

13. Lemberg I, Kirchberger I, Stucki G, Cieza A. The ICF Core Set for stroke from the perspective of physicians: a worldwide validation study using the Delphi technique. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2010; 46: 377–388.

14. Rehabilitation Measures Database. The rehabilitation clinician’s place to find the best instruments to screen patients and monitor their progress: developed by Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine Department of Medical Social Sciences Informatics group 2010. Available from:

15. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF activity. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 315–340.

16. Salter K, Jutai JW, Teasell R, Foley NC, Bitensky J, Bayley M. Issues for selection of outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: ICF Participation. Disabil Rehabil 2005; 27: 507–528.

17. Andresen EM. Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: S15–S20.

18. Kosak M, Smith T. Comparison of the 2-, 6-, and 12-minute walk tests in patients with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42: 103–107.

19. Fisher S, Lucas L, Thrasher TA. Robot-assisted gait training for patients with hemiparesis due to stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2011; 18: 269–276.

20. Tyson S, Connell L. The psychometric properties and clinical utility of measures of walking and mobility in neurological conditions: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2009; 23: 1018–1033.

21. Fulk GD, Echternach JL, Nof L, O’Sullivan S. Clinometric properties of the six-minute walk test in individuals undergoing rehabilitation poststroke. Physiother Theory Pract 2008; 24: 195–204.

22. Maeda A, Yuasa T, Nakamura K, Higuchi S, Motohashi Y. Physical performance tests after stroke: reliability and validity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 79: 519–525.

23. Pandyan AD, Johnson GR, Price CI, Curless RH, Barnes MP, Rodgers H. A review of the properties and limitations of the Ashworth and modified Ashworth Scales as measures of spasticity. Clin Rehabil 1999; 13: 373–383.

24. Blum L, Korner-Bitensky N. Usefulness of the Berg Balance Scale in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2008; 88: 559–566.

25. Wade DT, Hewer RL. Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50: 177–182.

26. Kurth T, Gaziano JM, Rexrode KM, Kase CS, Cook NR, Manson JE, et al. Prospective study of body mass index and risk of stroke in apparently healthy women. Circulation 2005; 111: 1992–1998.

27. Shinar D, Gross CR, Price TR, Banko M, Bolduc PL, Robinson RG. Screening for depression in stroke patients: the reliability and validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Stroke 1986; 17: 241–245.

28. Côté R, Battista RN, Wolfson C, Boucher J, Adam J, Hachinski V. The Canadian Neurological Scale: validation and reliability assessment. Neurology 1989; 39: 638–643.

29. Spilg EG, Martin BJ, Mitchell SL, Aitchison TC. A comparison of mobility assessments in a geriatric day hospital. Clin Rehabil 2001; 15: 296–300.

30. Hantson L, De Weerdt W, De Keyser J, Diener HC, Franke C, Palm R, et al. The European Stroke Scale. Stroke 1994; 25: 2215–2219.

31. Schuling J, de Haan R, Limburg M, Groenier KH. The Frenchay Activities Index. Assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke 1993; 24: 1173–1177.

32. Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 1226–1232.

33. Sanford J, Moreland J, Swanson LR, Stratford PW, Gowland C. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment for testing motor performance in patients following stroke. Phys Ther 1993; 73: 447–454.

34. Sayers SP, Jette AM, Haley SM, Heeren TC, Guralnik JM, Fielding RA. Validation of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004; 52: 1554–1559.

35. Collin C, Wade D. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1990; 53: 576–579.

36. Loewen SC, Anderson BA. Reliability of the Modified Motor Assessment Scale and the Barthel Index. Phys Ther 1988; 68: 1077–1081.

37. Dick JP, Guiloff RJ, Stewart A, Blackstock J, Bielawska C, Paul EA, Marsden CD. Mini-mental state examination in neurological patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1984; 47: 496–499.

38. Carr JH, Shepherd RB, Nordholm L, Lynne D. Investigation of a new motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Phys Ther 1985; 65: 175–180.

39. Gregson JM, Leathley MJ, Moore AP, Smith TL, Sharma AK, Watkins CL. Reliability of measurements of muscle tone and muscle power in stroke patients. Age Ageing 2000; 29: 223–228.

40. Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J. Use of the Barthel index and modified Rankin scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke 1999; 30: 1538–1541.

41. Goldstein LB, Bartels C, Davis JN. Interrater reliability of the NIH stroke scale. Arch Neurol 1989; 46: 660–662.

42. Kurtais Y, Küçükdeveci A, Elhan A, Yilmaz A, Kalli T, Tur BS, et al. Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Motor Assessment: its utility in stroke. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 1055–1061.

43. Franchignoni F, Tesio L, Benevolo E, Ottonello M. Psychometric properties of the Rivermead Mobility Index in Italian stroke rehabilitation inpatients. Clin Rehabil 2003; 17: 273–282.

44. Dunbar CC, Glickman-Weiss EL, Bursztyn DA, Kurtich M, Quiroz A, Conley P. A submaximal treadmill test for developing target ratings of perceived exertion for outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. Percept Mot Skills 1998; 87: 755–759.

45. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988; 19: 604–607.

46. Horgan NF, Finn AM, O’Regan M, Cunningham CJ. A new stroke activity scale-results of a reliability study. Disabil Rehabil 2003; 25: 277–285.

47. Hagen S, Bugge C, Alexander H. Psychometric properties of the SF-36 in the early post-stroke phase. J Adv Nurs 2003; 44: 461–468.

48. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 1994; 49: 85–94.

49. Barber M, Fail M, Shields M, Stott DJ, Langhorne P. Validity and reliability of estimating the scandinavian stroke scale score from medical records. Cerebrovasc Dis 2004; 17: 224–227.

50. Hill KD, Bernhardt J, McGann AM, Maltese D, Berkovits D. A new test of dynamic standing balance for stroke patients: reliability, validity and comparison with healthy elderly. J Physiother Canada 1996; 48: 257–262.

51. Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986; 34: 119–126.

52. Dias D, Laíns J, Pereira A, Nunes R, Caldas J, Amaral C, et al. Can we improve gait skills in chronic hemiplegics? A randomised control trial with gait trainer. Eura Medicophys 2007; 43: 499–504.

53. Hesse S, Waldner A, Tomelleri C. Innovative gait robot for the repetitive practice of floor walking and stair climbing up and down in stroke patients. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2010; 7: 30.

54. Conesa L, Costa U, Morales E, Edwards DJ, Cortes M, León D, et al. An observational report of intensive robotic and manual gait training in sub-acute stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2012; 9: 13.

55. Morone G, Bragoni M, Iosa M, De Angelis D, Venturiero V, Coiro P, et al. Who may benefit from robotic-assisted gait training? A randomized clinical trial in patients with subacute stroke. Neuro­rehabil Neural Repair 2011; 25: 636–644.

56. Geroin C, Picelli A, Munari D, Waldner A, Tomelleri C, Smania N. Combined transcranial direct current stimulation and robot-assisted gait training in patients with chronic stroke: a preliminary comparison. Clin Rehabil 2011; 25: 537–548.

57. Peurala SH, Airaksinen O, Huuskonen P, Jakala P, Juhakoski M, Sandell K, et al. Effects of intensive therapy using gait trainer or floor walking exercises early after stroke. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 166–173.

58. Maple FW, Tong RKY, Li LSW. A pilot study of randomized clinical controlled trial of gait training in subacute stroke patients with partial body-weight support electromechanical gait trainer and functional electrical stimulation: six-month follow-up. Stroke 2008; 39: 154–156.

59. Pohl M, Werner C, Holzgraefe M, Kroczek G, Mehrholz J, Wingendorf I, et al. Repetitive locomotor training and physiotherapy improve walking and basic activities of daily living after stroke: a single-blind, randomized multicentre trial (DEutsche GAngtrainerStudie, DEGAS). Clin Rehabil 2007; 21: 17–27.

60. Tong RK, Ng MF, Li LS. Effectiveness of gait training using an electromechanical gait trainer, with and without functional electric stimulation, in subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006; 87: 1298–1304.

61. Peurala SH, Tarkka IM, Pitkanen K, Sivenius J. The effectiveness of body weight-supported gait training and floor walking in patients with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1557–1564.

62. Werner C, Von Frankenberg S, Treig T, Konrad M, Hesse S. Treadmill training with partial body weight support and an electromechanical gait trainer for restoration of gait in subacute stroke patients: a randomized crossover study. Stroke 2002; 33: 2895–2901.

63. Hesse S, Werner C, Uhlenbrock D, von Frankenberg S, Bardeleben A, Brandl-Hesse B. An electromechanical gait trainer for restoration of gait in hemiparetic stroke patients: preliminary results. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2001; 15: 39–50.

64. Hesse S, Uhlenbrock D. A mechanized gait trainer for restoration of gait. J Rehabil Res Dev 2000; 37: 701–708.

65. Hesse S, Uhlenbrock D, Werner C, Bardeleben A. A mechanized gait trainer for restoring gait in nonambulatory subjects. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: 1158–1161.

66. Chang WH, Kim MS, Huh JP, Lee PK, Kim YH. Effects of robot-assisted gait training on cardiopulmonary fitness in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26: 318–324.

67. Magagnin V, Bo I, Turiel M, Fornari M, Caiani EG, Porta A. Effects of robot-driven gait orthosis treadmill training on the autonomic response in rehabilitation-responsive stroke and cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients. Gait Posture 2010; 32; 199–204.

68. Lewek MD, Cruz TH, Moore JL, Roth HR, Dhaher YY, Hornby TG. Allowing intralimb kinematic variability during locomotor training poststroke improves kinematic consistency: a subgroup analysis from a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther 2009; 89: 829–839.

69. Hidler J, Nichols D, Pelliccio M, Brady K, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, Hornby TG. Multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Lokomat in subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 5–13.

70. Schwartz I, Sajin A, Fisher I, Neeb M, Shochina M, Katz-Leurer M, et al. The effectiveness of locomotor therapy using robotic-assisted gait training in subacute stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. PMR 2009; 1: 516–523.

71. Westlake KP, Patten C. Pilot study of Lokomat versus manual-assisted treadmill training for locomotor recovery post-stroke. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2009; 6: 18.

72. Hornby TG, Campbell DD, Kahn JH, Demott T, Moore JL, Roth HR. Enhanced gait-related improvements after therapist versus robotic-assisted locomotor training in subjects with chronic stroke: a randomized controlled study. Stroke 2008; 39: 1786–1792.

73. Mayr A, Kofler M, Quirbach E, Matzak H, Fröhlich K, Saltuari L. Prospective, blinded, randomized crossover study of gait rehabilitation in stroke patients using the Lokomat gait orthosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007; 21: 307–314.

74. Krewer C, Müller F, Husemann B, Heller S, Quintern J, Koenig E. The influence of different Lokomat walking conditions on the energy expenditure of hemiparetic patients and healthy subjects. Gait Posture 2007; 26: 372–377.

75. Husemann B, Muller F, Krewer C, Heller S, Koenig E. Effects of locomotion training with assistance of a robot-driven gait orthosis in hemiparetic patients after stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Stroke 2007; 38: 349–354.

76. Freivogel S, Schmalohr D, Mehrholz J. Improved walking ability and reduced therapeutic stress with an electromechanical gait device. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 734–739.

77. Wu M, Landry JM, Yen SC, Schmit BD, Hornby TG, Rafferty M. A novel cable-driven robotic training improves locomotor function in individuals post-stroke. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2011; 2011: 8539–8542.

78. Tilson JK, Sullivan KJ, Cen SY, Rose DK, Koradia CH, Azen SP, et al. Locomotor Experience Applied Post Stroke (LEAPS) Investigative Team. Meaningful gait speed improvement during the first 60 days poststroke: minimal clinically important difference. Phys Ther 2010; 90: 196–208.

79. Cameron D, Bohannon RW. Criterion validity of lower extremity Motricity Index scores. Clin Rehabil 2000; 14: 208–211.

80. Stevens S. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 1946; 103: 677–680.

81. Smania N, Gambarin M, Paolucci S, Girardi P, Bortolami M, Fiaschi A, Santilli V, et al. Active ankle dorsiflexion and the Mingazzini manoeuvre: two clinical bedside tests related to prognosis of postural transferring, standing and walking ability in patients with stroke. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2011; 47: 435–440.

82. Iosa M, Morone G, Fusco A, Pratesi L, Bragoni M, Coiro P, et al. Effects of walking endurance reduction on gait stability in patients with stroke. Stroke Res Treat 2012; 2012: 810415.

83. Smidt N, de Vet HC, Bouter LM, Dekker J, Arendzen JH, de Bie RA, et al. Exercise Therapy Group. Effectiveness of exercise therapy: a best-evidence summary of systematic reviews. Aust J Physiother 2005; 51: 71–85.

84. Sommerfeld DK, Johansson H, Jönsson AL, Murray V, Wessari T, Holmqvist LW, et al. Rivermead mobility index can be used to predict length of stay for elderly persons, 5 days after stroke onset. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2011; 34: 64–71.

85. Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A, Grimby G, Franchignoni F. Strategies for assessment and outcome measurement in physical and rehabilitation medicine: an educational review. J Rehabil Med 2011; 43: 661–672.

86. Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR. Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. Int J Stroke 2009; 4: 200–205.

87. Benaim C, Pérennou DA, Villy J, Rousseaux M, Pelissier JY. Validation of a standardized assessment of postural control in stroke patients: the Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (PASS). Stroke 1999; 30: 1862–1868.

88. Vellone E, Savini S, Barbato N, Carovillano G, Caramia M, Alvaro R. Quality of life in stroke survivors: first results from the reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0. Ann Ig 2010; 22: 469–479.

Related articles

There are no related articles.



Full text



There is no supplementary for this article.

Related articles

Click here to show related articles

Print information

Volume 45, Issue 10

DOI: 10.2340/16501977-1234

Pages: 987-996

View at PubMed