Is the Intensity or Duration of Treadmill Training Important for Stroke Patients? A Meta-Analysis

Background Stroke, the third highest cause of death after cancer and cardiac diseases, is a strong cause of adult disability in most countries. Therefore, the aim of the current meta-analysis was to examine the most effective intensity and duration of treadmill training on motor performance in stroke subjects. Methods Suitable studies were recognized from January 1980 to July 2015 using PubMed as the main search engine. There were noticeable biases such as training intensity, training duration (≥2 weeks), relative training intensity, and Vo2max, which were controlled. Subgroup classifications for human studies were prepared based on previous studies and were determined as follows: low intensity (≤.6 m/s)–low volume/duration (≤500 minutes), low intensity (≤.6 m/s)–high volume/duration (u003e500 minutes), high intensity (u003e.6 m/s)–low volume/duration (≤500 minutes), and high intensity (u003e.6 m/s)–high volume/duration (u003e500 minutes). Results Forty-nine articles were identified for human studies. This meta-analysis exhibited treadmill training regardless if intensity and volume/duration had a significantly greater recovery of motor function than did no training (standard mean difference [SMD] = .601; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .546-.657; P  = .0001). Also, for the low-intensity, low-volume/-duration strategy, training on a treadmill displayed a significantly greater motor function rehabilitation than did no training (SMD = .75; 95% CI = .64-.85; P  = .0001). Conclusions The current meta-analysis showed that low-intensity (≤.6 m/s)–high-duration/-volume (u003e500 minutes) treadmill training as a rehabilitation strategy had the highest SMD to ameliorate stroke-induced dysfunctions compared with the other strategies.