Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Topics

Temas

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study. + = low risk, ‐ = high risk, ? = unclear risk
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study. + = low risk, ‐ = high risk, ? = unclear risk

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: 1 No Treadmill vs Treadmill: Walking independently (months).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 No Treadmill vs Treadmill: Walking independently (months).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Treadmill vs No Treadmill, outcome: 1.20 Age of onset of walking with assistance [days in study].
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Treadmill vs No Treadmill, outcome: 1.20 Age of onset of walking with assistance [days in study].

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Forest plot of comparison: 1 No Treadmill vs Treadmill: Gross motor function (GMFM as %).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: 1 No Treadmill vs Treadmill: Gross motor function (GMFM as %).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 1 Step frequency (16 months): Risk of developmental delay (% alternate steps).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 1 Step frequency (16 months): Risk of developmental delay (% alternate steps).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 2 Step quality (11 months): Risk of developmental delay (% toe contact).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 2 Step quality (11 months): Risk of developmental delay (% toe contact).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 3 Step quality (16 months): Risk of developmental delay [% toe contact].
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 3 Step quality (16 months): Risk of developmental delay [% toe contact].

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 4 Age of onset of independent walking.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 4 Age of onset of independent walking.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 5 Age of onset of walking with assistance (days in study).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 5 Age of onset of walking with assistance (days in study).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 6 Gross motor function measure (GMFM).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 6 Gross motor function measure (GMFM).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 7 Gross motor function related to standing (GMFM) ‐ Dimension D.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 7 Gross motor function related to standing (GMFM) ‐ Dimension D.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 8 Gross motor function related to walking, running and jumping (GMFM) ‐ Dimension E.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 8 Gross motor function related to walking, running and jumping (GMFM) ‐ Dimension E.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 9 Peabody Developmental Motor Scales ‐ 2: Spastic cerebral palsy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 9 Peabody Developmental Motor Scales ‐ 2: Spastic cerebral palsy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 10 Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory ‐ Mobility Scale scores: Spastic cerebral palsy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 10 Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory ‐ Mobility Scale scores: Spastic cerebral palsy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 11 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 11 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 12 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up when walking independently): Risk of developmental delay.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 12 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up when walking independently): Risk of developmental delay.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 13 Other gait parameters ‐ step length: Spastic cerebral palsy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 13 Other gait parameters ‐ step length: Spastic cerebral palsy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 14 Other gait parameters ‐ step length (follow‐up when walking independently): Risk of developmental delay.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 14 Other gait parameters ‐ step length (follow‐up when walking independently): Risk of developmental delay.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 15 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support: Spastic cerebral palsy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 15 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support: Spastic cerebral palsy.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 16 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up when walking independently): Risk of developmental delay.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Treadmill versus no treadmill, Outcome 16 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up when walking independently): Risk of developmental delay.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Treadmill without orthoses versus treadmill with orthoses, Outcome 1 Walking independently (1‐month follow‐up): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Treadmill without orthoses versus treadmill with orthoses, Outcome 1 Walking independently (1‐month follow‐up): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 Treadmill without orthoses versus treadmill with orthoses, Outcome 2 Gross motor function (GMFM 1‐month follow‐up): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Treadmill without orthoses versus treadmill with orthoses, Outcome 2 Gross motor function (GMFM 1‐month follow‐up): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 1 Step frequency: Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 1 Step frequency: Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 2 Age of onset of independent walking: Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 2 Age of onset of independent walking: Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 3 Age of onset of walking with assistance: Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 3 Age of onset of walking with assistance: Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 4 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 1): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 4 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 1): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 5 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 2): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 5 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 2): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 6 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 3): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 6 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 3): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 7 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 4): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 7 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 4): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 8 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 1): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 8 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 1): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 9 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 2): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 9 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 2): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 10 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 3): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 10 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 3): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 11 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 4): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.11

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 11 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 4): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 12 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 1): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.12

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 12 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 1): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 13 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 2): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.13

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 13 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 2): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 14 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 3): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.14

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 14 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 3): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 15 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 4): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.15

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 15 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 4): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 16 Other gait parameters ‐ step width (follow‐up): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.16

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 16 Other gait parameters ‐ step width (follow‐up): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 17 Other gait parameters ‐ step length (follow‐up): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.17

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 17 Other gait parameters ‐ step length (follow‐up): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 18 Other gait parameters ‐ toe‐off (follow‐up): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.18

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 18 Other gait parameters ‐ toe‐off (follow‐up): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 19 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle dorsiflexion (follow‐up): Down syndrome.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.19

Comparison 3 High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill, Outcome 19 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle dorsiflexion (follow‐up): Down syndrome.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of Finding Tables

Treadmill compared with no treadmill for children under six years of age at risk of neuromotor delay

Patient or population: children under six years with cerebral palsy or Down syndrome or at risk of neuromotor delay

Intervention: treadmill

Comparison: no treadmill

Outcomes

Absolute effects

Mean difference (95% CI)*

Number of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Age of onset of independent walking (months)

MD ‐2.08 (‐5.38 to 1.22)

58

(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate

1,2,3,4,5

Age of onset of walking with assistance (days in study)

MD ‐38.54 (‐106.13 to 29.05)

58
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low

2,3,5,6,7,8

Gross motor function (GMFM) (%)

MD 0.88 (‐4.54 to 6.30)

36
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderate

2,5,6,8,9

Gross motor function related to standing (GMFM) ‐ Dimension D (%)

MD 5.41 (‐1.64 to 12.43)

32
(1 RCT & 1 quasi‐RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Low

2,5

Gross motor function related to walking, running and jumping (GMFM) ‐ Dimension E (%)

MD 4.51 (0.29 to 8.73)

32
(1 RCT & 1 quasi‐RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Low

2,5,10

Velocity (m/s)

MD 0.23 (0.08 to 0.37)

32
(1 RCT & 1 quasi‐RCT)

⊕⊕⊕⊕

High

2

*treadmill versus no treadmill

CI: Confidence interval; MD: Mean difference; RCT: Randomised controlled trial

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1. Randomization took place through ID numbers provided by a computer program that a statistician assigned to participants after considering the three stratification factors of age, sex and birth weight.
2. Allocation concealment is unclear and there was no blinding of participants and personnel.
3. Substantial heterogeneity.
4. The estimate effect was different between meta‐analysed studies.
5. Small number of participants.
6. Randomization was used to allocate participants to the intervention or the control groups.
7. The included studies had different magnitudes of estimation effects. The wide range of the 95% CI was different between studies and was always large.
8. The 95% CI around the estimate of effect of all studies included in the meta‐analysis was very wide.
9. All included studies indicated no effect.
10. Heterogeneity was low.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Summary of Finding Tables
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 1. Summary of interventions and outcome measures

Outcome or Subgroup

Disorder

Studies

Comparsion groups

(G1 versus G2)

Sample size

(G1/G2)

Result of comparison

Nº

ID

1.1. Step frequency (16 months)

Risk

1

Angulo‐Barroso 2013

NTM versus TM

15/13

G1 = G2

1.2. Step quality (11 months)

Risk

1

Angulo‐Barroso 2013

NTM versus TM

15/13

G1 < G2

1.3. Step quality (16 months)

Risk

1

Angulo‐Barroso 2013

NTM versus TM

15/13

G1 < G2

1.4. Age of onset of independent walking [months]

DS and Risk

2

Angulo‐Barroso 2013; Ulrich 2001

NTM versus TM

30/28

G1 < G2

1.5. Age of onset of walking with assistance [days in study]

DS and Risk

2

Angulo‐Barroso 2013; Ulrich 2001

NTM versus TM

30/28

G1 = G2

1.6. Gross motor function measure (GMFM) [%]

CP and Risk

2

Cherng 2007; Chen 2008

NTM versus TM

19/17

G1 = G2

1.7. GMFM related to standing, Dimension D [%]

Risk and CP

2

Lowe 2015; Mattern‐Baxter 2013

NTM versus TM

14/18

G1 = G2

1.8. GMFM related to walking, running and jumping, Dimension E [%]

Risk and CP

2

Lowe 2015; Mattern‐Baxter 2013

NTM versus TM

14/18

G1 = G2

1.9. Peabody Developmental Motor Scales ‐ 2 [raw scores]

CP

1

Mattern‐Baxter 2013

NTM versus TM

6/6

G1 < G2

1.10. Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory ‐ Mobility Scale scores

CP

1

Mattern‐Baxter 2013

NTM versus TM

6/6

G1 < G2

1.11. Other gait parameters: velocity [m/s]

CP and Risk

1

Lowe 2015; Mattern‐Baxter 2013

NTM versus TM

4/4

G1 < G2

1.12. Other gait parameters: velocity (follow‐up when walking independent)

Risk

1

Angulo‐Barroso 2013

NTM versus TM

15/13

G1 = G2

1.13. Other gait parameters: step length [cm]

CP

1

Cherng 2007

NTM versus TM

4/4

G1 = G2

1.14. Other gait parameters: step length (follow‐up when walking independently)

Risk

1

Angulo‐Barroso 2013

NTM versus TM

15/13

G1 = G2

1.15. Other gait parameters: gait double‐limb support [%]

CP

1

Cherng 2007

NTM versus TM

4/4

G1 = G2

1.16. Other gait parameters: gait double‐limb support (follow‐up when walking independently) [%]

Risk

1

Angulo‐Barroso 2013

NTM versus TM

15/13

G1 = G2

2.1. Walking independent (1‐month follow‐up) [months]

DS

1

Looper 2010

TM&O versus TM

10/7

G1 = G2

2.2. GMFM (1‐month follow‐up) [%]

DS

1

Looper 2010

TM&O versus TM

10/7

G1 > G2

3.1. Step frequency [steps/min]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

16/14

G1 > G2

3.2. Age of onset of independent walking [months]

DS

1

Wu 2007

HI TM versus LG TM

16/14

G1 = G2

3.3. Age of onset of walking with assistance [months]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

16/14

G1 = G2

3.4. Other gait parameters: velocity (follow‐up visit 1) [m/s]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.5. Other gait parameters: velocity (follow‐up visit 2) [m/s]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 < G2

3.6. Other gait parameters: velocity (follow‐up visit 3) [m/s]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.7. Other gait parameters: velocity (follow‐up visit 4) [m/s]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.8. Other gait parameters: gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 1) [%]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.9. Other gait parameters: gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 2) [%]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 > G2

3.10. Other gait parameters: gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 3) [%]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.11. Other gait parameters: gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 4) [%]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.12. Other gait parameters: gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 1) [%]

DS

1

Wu 2010

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.13. Other gait parameters: gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 2) [%]

DS

1

Wu 2010

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 > G2

3.14. Other gait parameters: gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 3) [%]

DS

1

Wu 2010

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.15. Other gait parameters: gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 4) [%]

DS

1

Wu 2010

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.16. Other gait parameters: step length (follow‐up) [cm]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.17. Other gait parameters: step width (follow‐up) [cm]

DS

1

Ulrich 2008

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.18. Other gait parameters: gait ankle dorsiflexion (follow‐up) [%]

DS

1

Wu 2010

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

3.19. Other gait parameters: toe‐off (follow‐up) [%]

DS

1

Wu 2010

HI TM versus LG TM

13/12

G1 = G2

CP = Cerebral palsy; DS = Down syndrome; G1 = Group 1; G2 = Group 2; HI TM = high‐intensity treadmill; LG TM = low‐intensity treadmill; Na = total participants, number of analysed participants; Nº = number of studies included; NTM = no treadmill; TM = treadmill; TM&O = treadmill and orthoses; Risk = risk of developmental delay.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Summary of interventions and outcome measures
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. Treadmill versus no treadmill

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Step frequency (16 months): Risk of developmental delay (% alternate steps) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Step quality (11 months): Risk of developmental delay (% toe contact) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Step quality (16 months): Risk of developmental delay [% toe contact] Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Age of onset of independent walking Show forest plot

2

58

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐2.08 [‐5.38, 1.22]

4.1 Risk of developmental delay

1

28

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐2.34, 1.14]

4.2 Down syndrome

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐4.0 [‐6.96, ‐1.04]

5 Age of onset of walking with assistance (days in study) Show forest plot

2

58

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐38.54 [‐106.13, 29.05]

5.1 Down syndrome

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐74.0 [‐135.40, ‐12.60]

5.2 Risk of developmental delay

1

28

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐5.0 [‐62.11, 52.11]

6 Gross motor function measure (GMFM) Show forest plot

2

36

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.88 [‐4.54, 6.30]

6.1 Spastic cerebral palsy

1

8

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

7.60 [‐19.46, 34.66]

6.2 Risk of developmental delay

1

28

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.60 [‐4.93, 6.13]

7 Gross motor function related to standing (GMFM) ‐ Dimension D Show forest plot

2

32

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

5.41 [‐1.61, 12.43]

7.1 Spastic cerebral palsy

1

12

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

11.57 [0.05, 23.09]

7.2 Developmental delay

1

20

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.33 [1.43, 5.23]

8 Gross motor function related to walking, running and jumping (GMFM) ‐ Dimension E Show forest plot

2

32

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

4.51 [0.29, 8.73]

8.1 Spastic cerebral palsy

1

12

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.01 [‐1.11, 7.13]

8.2 Developmental delay

1

20

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

7.60 [0.88, 14.32]

9 Peabody Developmental Motor Scales ‐ 2: Spastic cerebral palsy Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10 Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory ‐ Mobility Scale scores: Spastic cerebral palsy Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity Show forest plot

2

32

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.08, 0.37]

11.1 Spastic cerebral palsy

1

12

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.18 [‐0.09, 0.45]

11.2 Developmental delay

1

20

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.08, 0.42]

12 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up when walking independently): Risk of developmental delay Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

13 Other gait parameters ‐ step length: Spastic cerebral palsy Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14 Other gait parameters ‐ step length (follow‐up when walking independently): Risk of developmental delay Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

15 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support: Spastic cerebral palsy Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

16 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up when walking independently): Risk of developmental delay Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Treadmill versus no treadmill
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. Treadmill without orthoses versus treadmill with orthoses

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Walking independently (1‐month follow‐up): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Gross motor function (GMFM 1‐month follow‐up): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Treadmill without orthoses versus treadmill with orthoses
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Step frequency: Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Age of onset of independent walking: Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Age of onset of walking with assistance: Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 1): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 2): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 3): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Other gait parameters ‐ velocity (follow‐up visit 4): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 1): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 2): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 3): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11 Other gait parameters ‐ gait double‐limb support (follow‐up visit 4): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 1): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

13 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 2): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 3): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

15 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle plantar flexion (follow‐up visit 4): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

16 Other gait parameters ‐ step width (follow‐up): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

17 Other gait parameters ‐ step length (follow‐up): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

18 Other gait parameters ‐ toe‐off (follow‐up): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

19 Other gait parameters ‐ gait ankle dorsiflexion (follow‐up): Down syndrome Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. High‐intensity treadmill versus low‐intensity treadmill
Ir a la tabla de la revisión