Backward walking training is as effective as or better than forward walking training for improving walking speed after stroke: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Abstract

Objective: In people who have had stroke, are the effects of backward walking comparable with forward walking for improving walking (i.e. speed, cadence, and stride length)? Does the addition of backward walking to forward walking help improve the benefits of forward walking? Are any benefits maintained beyond intervention?

Methods: A systematic review of randomized trials, with adults following stroke, was developed. The intervention of interest was backward walking training, delivered either as a solo intervention or in combination with forward walking training. The outcome measures of interest were walking speed, cadence, and stride length.

Results: The effect of backward walking training is similar as or better than that of forward walking training for improving walking speed (MD 0.16 m/s, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.27), but results for cadence and stride length were very imprecise. The addition of backward walking training to forward walking training provided negligible effects on walking speed (MD 0.03 m/s, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.04), cadence (MD 5 steps/min, 95% CI 1 to 10), and stride length (MD 0.04 m, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09). Maintenance of effects beyond the intervention period remains uncertain.

Conclusions: This review provided moderate-quality evidence that backward walking training is slightly better than forward walking training for improving walking speed after stroke, but not when it is additional to forward walking training. Large and well-designed trials are warranted to strengthen the evidence regarding backward walking training, especially in the subacute phase after stroke.