09 m/s higher walking speeds. The upper limit of the 95% CI only just spans a worthwhile effect which has been suggested as 0.16 m/s by Tilson et al (2010). However, it does strongly suggest that mechanically assisted walking is not detrimental to walking speed. Furthermore, at 6 months, there was a statistically significant improvement in walking speed of 0.12 m/s for participants who gained the ability to walk independently as a result of mechanically assisted walking

and body weight support compared with overground walking. Furthermore, the upper limit of the 95% CI spans a worthwhile effect. For those participants who could walk independently SCR7 in vitro at 4 weeks, mechanically assisted walking with body weight support tended to produce selleckchem 35 m further walking distance, with the average capacity achieved by participants in the experimental group being 144 m compared with 110 m achieved by participants in a control group. This strongly suggests that mechanically assisted walking is not detrimental to walking capacity. Furthermore, at 6 months, there was a statistically significant improvement in walking distance of 55 m for participants who gained the ability to walk independently as a result of mechanised walking and body weight support compared with overground walking. In the two studies that included a 6 month follow-up, the average distance walked in 6

min for the experimental group was 203 m compared with 148 m in the control group. Our review reports similar findings to that of a recent Cochrane systematic review investigating the use of electromechanical 17-DMAG (Alvespimycin) HCl gait trainers

to improve walking after stroke. Mehrholz et al (2010) found that electromechanical gait training increased the odds of becoming independent in walking (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.22) without detriment to walking speed (MD 0.04 m/s, 95% CI –0.05 to 0.14) or walking capacity (MD 7 m, 95% CI –32 to 46). Taken together, these reviews suggest that it is worthwhile to use some form of mechanical assistance to improve walking after stroke. This review has some potential limitations. First, as is usual with studies of complex interventions, the outcome measures were not the same, although they were similar. Second, only half the studies measured the outcomes in the long term. Finally, most systematic reviews are susceptible to publication bias and we attempted to pre-empt this by including studies published in languages other than English. In conclusion, this systematic review provides evidence that mechanically assisted walking results in more independent walking after 4 weeks of intervention in patients who cannot walk within the first month after stroke. Importantly, this increase is without detriment to walking speed or capacity. Further, benefits appear to be maintained at 6 months, with walking capacity and speed being superior in those who received mechanically assisted walking during inpatient rehabilitation.