High-intensity interval training with robot-assisted gait therapy vs. treadmill gait therapy in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial.

The control group received active treadmill gait therapy, so the study cannot tell you whether the robot, the high-intensity interval structure, or the combination produced the gains. Twenty-two patients per group at a single hospital in South Korea; the authors call the study exploratory and note that randomisation may not have fully eliminated baseline imbalances (the robot group started with a lower Fugl-Meyer lower-extremity score). All participants were in the chronic phase (more than 6 months post-stroke) and walked with assistance or supervision, so the result does not extend to acute or subacute patients or to those who are already walking independently. Assessors were not blinded, and subjective measures such as the Berg Balance Scale and Fugl-Meyer score may have been influenced by knowing which group the patient was in. The high-intensity protocol was the same for everyone; no comparison was made between different interval structures or intensities.

Funded by the National Rehabilitation Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea. No industry sponsorship or author conflicts of interest are declared in the text provided.

Do not read this as proof that robot-assisted gait therapy specifically improves walking speed in chronic stroke. The control group also received active treadmill training, and the authors state plainly that the design cannot separate the robot from the interval protocol. With 22 patients per group at one site and no blinding of the assessors, the result is a hypothesis to test in a larger trial, not a settled practice change.