Table 2.

Quality evaluation of data driven studies for question 2.

First Author/year	Design	Evidence Level [16]	Duration	Dosage	Setting	Country	Sample size	Age mean	Age range	Characteristics	Gender		Sampling	Key DV	Key measure	Results	Score (max27)* [15]
											M	F
Spenko [28] 2006	Pilot Intervention study	IV	§	§	Residential care	USA	“several”	§	§	§	§	§	§	Distance from wall in meters before the smart-walker changed direction	Motor performance	Good performance outcome using both PAMM technologies. Subjective measures gave less confidence in robotic-controlled walkers to manually controlled walkers.	4
Saeki [32] 2008	Case study	IV	<6 mths	20 mins 2 d/wk for 4 mths	Home	Japan	1	48	§	Neurological	0	1	§	Oxygenated/ deoxygenated/ total haemoglobin level in motor cortex assessed by fMRI technique	Motor assessment scale (modified Ashworth Scale)	Improvement in modified Ashworth motor assessment scale (2 to 5); reduced score on modified Ashworth scale (3 to 2); no change in wrist and fine motor tasks; direct activation of motor area in affected hemisphere.	4
Shimada [40] 2009	Intervention study	III-2	<6 mths	2 × 90 mins/wk for 3 mths	Retirement village	Japan	15	78.3	72–85	Healthy	0	15	Conven-ience	Walking speed	5 m walk test	Increase in walking speed; reduction in energy consumption (lower glucose metabolism)	12
Carlson and Demiris [51] 2012	Intervention study	III-2	<1 d	2 × 40 mins	Simulated “home” environment	England	21	§	17–47	Healthy	§	§	Conven-ience	Wheel-chair control around a simulated home environment	Collision and cognitive perception	Less collisions with robotic assistance and lower scores on perceptions of concentration	13

^§Not given.

*The last question of the Downs and Black assessment tool was excluded due to ambiguity of the question. This meant that the maximum score possible was 27.