Table Info

Table 3.

The effect of HIT on walking speed and walking endurance

Author (year)	Group	Condition	Gait speed				6-minute walk test
Author (year)	Group	Condition	Walking speed pre/post (m/s)	Mean difference (m/s)	P-value	Walking speed at follow-up (m/s)	Walking endurance pre/post (m)	Mean difference (m)	P-value	Walking endurance at follow-up (m)
Outermans et al. (2010) [26]	C	SS	1.4 ± 0.5/1.4 ± 0.4	0	0.03	None	401 ± 132/422 ± 128	21	0.02	No follow-up
Outermans et al. (2010) [26]	E	SS	1.5 ± 0.5/1.7 ± 0.5	0.2	0.03	None	459 ± 146/519 ± 165	60	0.02	No follow-up
MacKay-Lyons et al. (2013) [27]	C	SS	0.56 ± 0.19/0.71 ± 0.20	0.15	None	6 months = 0.73 ± 0.20 12 months = 0.74 ± 0.17	195 ± 78/232 ± 80	37	None	6 months = 239 ± 89 12 months = 242 ± 81
MacKay-Lyons et al. (2013) [27]	E	SS	0.52 ± 0.21/0.75 ± 0.22	0.23	None	6 months = 0.76 ± 0.19 12months = 0.78 ± 0.22	189 ± 82/279 ± 89	90	None	6 months = 282 ± 99 12 months = 287 ± 88
Holleran et al. (2014) [23]	E	SS	0.33 ± 0.27/0.66 ± 0.35	0.33	N/A	3 months = 0.65 ± 0.36	119 ± 94/263 ± 170	144	N/A	3 months = 260 ± 169
Holleran et al. (2014) [23]	E	FS	0.47 ± 0.41/1.00 ± 0.67	0.53	N/A	3 months = 0.95 ± 0.62	119 ± 94/263 ± 170	144	N/A	3 months = 260 ± 169
Leddy et al., (2016) [30]	C	SS	0.47 ± 0.28/0.58 ± 0.25	0.11	None	2–3 months = 0.63 ± 0.29	Not collected
Leddy et al., (2016) [30]	E	SS	0.35 ± 0.18/0.76 ± 0.36	0.39	None	2–3 months = 0.78 ± 0.38	Not collected
Hornby et al. (2016) [28]	C	SS	0.35 ± 0.24/0.43 ± 0.27	0.08	< 0.05	2 months = 0.47 ± 0.35	131 ± 108/160 ± 111	29	< 0.05	2 months = 169 ± 121
	E	SS	0.32 ± 0.25/0.59 ± 0.37	0.27	< 0.05	2 months = 0.65 ± 0.42	116 ± 88/232 ± 149	116	< 0.05	2 months = 227 ± 160
	C	FS	0.46 ± 0.35/0.57 ± 0.43	0.11	None	2 months = 0.60 ± 0.43	N/A
	E	FS	0.48 ± 0.37/0.84 ± 0.60	0.36	None	2 months = 0.85 ± 062	N/A
Mahtani et al. (2017) [41]	C	SS	0.62 ± 0.31/0.75 ± 0.33	0.13	< 0.01	None	Not collected
Mahtani et al. (2017) [41]	E	SS	0.54 ± 0.32/1.00 ± 0.47	0.56	< 0.01	None	Not collected
Moore et al. (2020) [24]	C	SS	0.62 ± 0.34/0.79 ± 0.34	0.17	< 0.001	None	243 ± 138/303 ± 130	60	< 0.001	No follow-up
	E	SS	0.64 ± 0.33/1.00 ± 0.40	0.36	< 0.001	None	243 ± 141/378 ± 156	135	< 0.001	No follow-up
	C	FS	0.85 ± 0.49/1.00 ± 0.49	0.15	< 0.001	None	N/A
	E	FS	0.89 ± 0.49/1.37 ± 0.52	0.48	< 0.001	None	N/A
Henderson et al. (2022) [25]	E-LoA > 5	SS	0.08 (0–0.23)/0.63 (0.38–0.95)	0.55	N/A	None	16 (6–44)/213 (117–317)	197	N/A	No follow-up
Klassen et al. (2020) [29]	C	SS	0.39 ± 0.22/0.74 ± 0.37	0.35	None	6 months = 1.0 ± 0.50 12 months = 1.07 ± 0.60	129 ± 77.6/246 ± 138	137	0.02	6 months = 328 ± 144 12 months = 351 ± 180
	E -DOSE1	SS	0.44 ± 0.25/0.90 ± 0.31	0.46	None	6 months = 1.02 ± 0.24 12 months = 1.04 ± 0.23	129 ± 97.3/307 ± 118	178	0.02	6 months = 358 ± 125 12 months = 401 ± 146
	C	SS	0.39 ± 0.22/0.74 ± 0.37	0.35	None	6 months = 1.0 ± 0.50 12 months = 1.07 ± 0.60	129 ± 77.6/246 ± 138	137	0.03	6 months = 328 ± 144 12 months = 351 ± 180
	E-DOSE2	SS	0.42 ± 0.25/0.97 ± 0.40	0.55	None	6 months = 1.02 ± 0.44 12 months = 1.11 ± 0.43	138 ± 95.5/315 ± 142	177	0.03	6 months = 355 ± 149 12 months = 375 ± 147
Brauer et al. (2021) [40]	E	SS	0.72 ± 0.29/0.99 ± 0.36	0.27	N/A	26 weeks = 1.01 ± 0.33	277 ± 142/368 ± 144	91	N/A	26 weeks = 402 ± 141

C: control group; SS: self-select speed; E: experimental group; None: not reported; N/A: does not apply; FS: fastest speed; LoA: level of assistance; DOSE: determining optimal poststroke exercise. Variability is noted as standard deviation or range

Declarations

Author contributions

AOM: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Investigation, Visualization, Project administration, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. AB: Data Curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing, Supervision. HS: Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing—original draft. CC: Methodology, Validation. SIS and EAP: Data curation, Investigation. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Funding

Not applicable.

Copyright

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Donkor ES. Stroke in the 21^st Century: A Snapshot of the Burden, Epidemiology, and Quality of Life. Stroke Res Treat. 2018;2018:3238165. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet. 2011;377:1693–702. [DOI] [PubMed]

Hornby TG, Holleran CL, Leddy AL, Hennessy P, Leech KA, Connolly M, et al. Feasibility of Focused Stepping Practice During Inpatient Rehabilitation Poststroke and Potential Contributions to Mobility Outcomes. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015;29:923–32. [DOI] [PubMed]

Smith MC, Barber PA, Stinear CM. The TWIST Algorithm Predicts Time to Walking Independently After Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017;31:955–64. [DOI] [PubMed]

Hornby TG, Reisman DS, Ward IG, Scheets PL, Miller A, Haddad D, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline to Improve Locomotor Function Following Chronic Stroke, Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury, and Brain Injury. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2020;44:49–100. [DOI] [PubMed]

Ardestani MM, Kinnaird CR, Henderson CE, Hornby TG. Compensation or Recovery? Altered Kinetics and Neuromuscular Synergies Following High-Intensity Stepping Training Poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019;33:47–58. [DOI] [PubMed]

Boyne P, Dunning K, Carl D, Gerson M, Khoury J, Rockwell B, et al. High-Intensity Interval Training and Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Ambulatory Chronic Stroke: Feasibility Study. Phys Ther. 2016;96:1533–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Boyne P, Scholl V, Doren S, Carl D, Billinger SA, Reisman DS, et al. Locomotor training intensity after stroke: Effects of interval type and mode. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020;27:483–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Boyne P, Billinger SA, Reisman DS, Awosika OO, Buckley S, Burson J, et al. Optimal Intensity and Duration of Walking Rehabilitation in Patients With Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol. 2023;80:342–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

10.

Cleland B, Madhavan S. Changes in Walking Speed After High-Intensity Treadmill Training Are Independent of Changes in Spatiotemporal Symmetry After Stroke. Front Neurol. 2021;12:647338. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

11.

Ivey FM, Stookey AD, Hafer-Macko CE, Ryan AS, Macko RF. Higher Treadmill Training Intensity to Address Functional Aerobic Impairment after Stroke. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;24:2539–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

12.

Moore JL, Roth EJ, Killian C, Hornby TG. Locomotor Training Improves Daily Stepping Activity and Gait Efficiency in Individuals Poststroke Who Have Reached a “Plateau” in Recovery. Stroke. 2010;41:129–35. [DOI] [PubMed]

13.

Munari D, Pedrinolla A, Smania N, Picelli A, Gandolfi M, Saltuari L, et al. High-intensity treadmill training improves gait ability, VO2peak and cost of walking in stroke survivors: preliminary results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;54:408–18. [DOI] [PubMed]

14.

Lee MJ, Kilbreath SL, Singh MF, Zeman B, Lord SR, Raymond J, et al. Comparison of Effect of Aerobic Cycle Training and Progressive Resistance Training on Walking Ability After Stroke: A Randomized Sham Exercise–Controlled Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56:976–85. [DOI] [PubMed]

15.

Tang A, Sibley KM, Thomas SG, Bayley MT, Richardson D, McIlroy WE, et al. Effects of an Aerobic Exercise Program on Aerobic Capacity, Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters, and Functional Capacity in Subacute Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009;23:398–406. [DOI] [PubMed]

16.

Bang DH, Son YL. Effect of intensive aerobic exercise on respiratory capacity and walking ability with chronic stroke patients: a randomized controlled pilot trial. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016;28:2381–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

17.

Bernhardt J, Hayward KS, Kwakkel G, Ward NS, Wolf SL, Borschmann K, et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: The Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable taskforce. Int J Stroke. 2017;12:444–50. [DOI] [PubMed]

18.

Zeiler SR. Should We Care About Early Post-Stroke Rehabilitation? Not Yet, but Soon. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2019;19:13. [DOI] [PubMed]

19.

Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:531–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

20.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2021;18:e1003583. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

21.

Bayles MP. ACSM’S Exercise Testing and Prescription. 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2023.

22.

Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:ED000142. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

23.

Holleran CL, Straube DD, Kinnaird CR, Leddy AL, Hornby TG. Feasibility and Potential Efficacy of High-Intensity Stepping Training in Variable Contexts in Subacute and Chronic Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014;28:643–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

24.

Moore JL, Nordvik JE, Erichsen A, Rosseland I, Bø E, Hornby TG, et al. Implementation of High-Intensity Stepping Training During Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation Improves Functional Outcomes. Stroke. 2020;51:563–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

25.

Henderson CE, Fahey M, Brazg G, Moore JL, Hornby TG. Predicting Discharge Walking Function With High-Intensity Stepping Training During Inpatient Rehabilitation in Nonambulatory Patients Poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;103:S189–96. [DOI] [PubMed]

26.

Outermans JC, van Peppen RP, Wittink H, Takken T, Kwakkel G. Effects of a high-intensity task-oriented training on gait performance early after stroke: a pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24:979–87. [DOI] [PubMed]

27.

Mackay-Lyons M, McDonald A, Matheson J, Eskes G, Klus MA. Dual Effects of Body-Weight Supported Treadmill Training on Cardiovascular Fitness and Walking Ability Early After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27:644–53. [DOI] [PubMed]

28.

Hornby TG, Holleran CL, Hennessy PW, Leddy AL, Connolly M, Camardo J, et al. Variable Intensive Early Walking Poststroke (VIEWS): A Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016;30:440–50. [DOI] [PubMed]

29.

Klassen TD, Dukelow SP, Bayley MT, Benavente O, Hill MD, Krassioukov A, et al. Higher Doses Improve Walking Recovery During Stroke Inpatient Rehabilitation. Stroke. 2020;51:2639–48. [DOI] [PubMed]

30.

Leddy AL, Connolly M, Holleran CL, Hennessy PW, Woodward J, Arena RA, et al. Alterations in Aerobic Exercise Performance and Gait Economy Following High-Intensity Dynamic Stepping Training in Persons With Subacute Stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016;40:239–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

31.

Bohannon RW, Glenney SS. Minimal clinically important difference for change in comfortable gait speed of adults with pathology: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20:295–300. [DOI] [PubMed]

32.

Salvi D, Poffley E, Orchard E, Tarassenko L. The Mobile-Based 6-Minute Walk Test: Usability Study and Algorithm Development and Validation. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8:e13756. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

33.

Wiener J, McIntyre A, Janssen S, Chow JT, Batey C, Teasell R. Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training for Fitness and Mobility Post Stroke: A Systematic Review. PM R. 2019;11:868–78. [DOI] [PubMed]

34.

Luo L, Zhu S, Shi L, Wang P, Li M, Yuan S. High Intensity Exercise for Walking Competency in Individuals with Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019;28:104414. [DOI] [PubMed]

35.

Anjos JM, Neto MG, Dos Santos FS, Almeida KO, Bocchi EA, Lima Bitar YS, et al. The impact Of high-intensity interval training On functioning And health-related quality Of life In post-stroke patients: A systematic review With meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil. 2022;36:726–39. [DOI] [PubMed]

36.

Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:84–90. [DOI] [PubMed]

37.

Lefebvre S, Laloux P, Peeters A, Desfontaines P, Jamart J, Vandermeeren Y. Dual-tDCS enhances online motor skill learning and long-term retention in chronic stroke patients. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;6:343. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

38.

Zeiler SR, Krakauer JW. The interaction between training and plasticity in the poststroke brain. Curr Opin Neurol. 2013;26:609–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

39.

Winstein C, Lewthwaite R, Blanton SR, Wolf LB, Wishart L. Infusing motor learning research into neurorehabilitation practice: A Historical Perspective With Case Exemplar From the Accelerated Skill Acquisition Program. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2014;38:190–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

40.

Brauer SG, Kuys SS, Paratz JD, Ada L. High-intensity treadmill training and self-management for stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation: a feasibility study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021;7:215. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

41.

Mahtani GB, Kinnaird CR, Connolly M, Holleran CL, Hennessy PW, Woodward J, et al. Altered Sagittal- and Frontal-Plane Kinematics Following High-Intensity Stepping Training Versus Conventional Interventions in Subacute Stroke. Phys Ther. 2017;97:320–9. [DOI] [PubMed]