Summary of findings for the main comparison.

Treadmill (with or without BWS) for walking after stroke

Treadmill (with or without BWS) for walking after stroke
Patient or population: patients with walking after stroke Settings: Inpatient and outpatient Intervention: Treadmill (with or without BWS)
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Treadmill (with or without BWS)
Walking speed (m/sec) at end of treatment phase Measures of timed gait	The mean walking speed (m/sec) at end of treatment phase in the control groups was 0.59 m/sec	The mean walking speed (m/sec) at end of treatment phase in the intervention groups was 0.07 higher (0.03 to 0.11 higher)		1891 (35 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2
Walking speed (m/sec) at end of treatment phase ‐ dependent in walking at start of treatment Measures of timed gait	The mean walking speed (m/sec) at end of treatment phase ‐ dependent in walking at start of treatment in the control groups was 0.26 m/sec	The mean walking speed (m/sec) at end of treatment phase ‐ dependent in walking at start of treatment in the intervention groups was 0.01 lower (0.06 lower to 0.03 higher)		752 (9 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3
Walking speed (m/sec) at end of treatment phase ‐ independent in walking at start of treatment Measures of timed gait	The mean walking speed (m/sec) at end of treatment phase ‐ independent in walking at start of treatment in the control groups was 0.67 m/sec	The mean walking speed (m/sec) at end of treatment phase ‐ independent in walking at start of treatment in the intervention groups was 0.11 higher (0.06 to 0.16 higher)		1139 (26 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2,4
walking endurance (m) at the end of treatment Measures of timed gait	The mean walking endurance (m) at the end of treatment in the control groups was 203.7 m	The mean walking endurance (m) at the end of treatment in the intervention groups was 20.08 higher (6.14 to 34.03 higher)		1388 (20 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2
walking endurance (m) at the end of treatment ‐ dependent in walking at start of treatment Measures of timed gait	The mean walking endurance (m) at the end of treatment ‐ dependent in walking at start of treatment in the control groups was 115.3 m	The mean walking endurance (m) at the end of treatment ‐ dependent in walking at start of treatment in the intervention groups was 5.09 lower (23.41 lower to 13.22 higher)		639 (5 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3
walking endurance (m) at the end of treatment ‐ independent in walking at start of treatment Measures of timed gait	The mean walking endurance (m) at the end of treatment ‐ independent in walking at start of treatment in the control groups was 240.9 m	The mean walking endurance (m) at the end of treatment ‐ independent in walking at start of treatment in the intervention groups was 30.61 higher (14.02 to 47.2 higher)		749 (15 studies)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2,4
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval;
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

¹ Downgraded due to several ratings with "unclear" or even "high" risk of bias ² Downgraded due to CIs embracing effect size of least clinically important benefit ³ Downgraded due to CIs embracing effect size of null hypothesis ⁴ Upgraded due to evidence of a dose response gradient