ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2025
Home-Based Gait Interventions for Adults with Stroke: A Scoping Review.
Review in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recent research on rehabilitation interventions for post-stroke gait and balance in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To map the peer-reviewed literature regarding the methods and outcomes of home-based gait interventions for adults with stroke. Data Sources: PubMed, Cumulative Index To Nursing & Allied Health Literature, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies based on the terms "stroke," "gait," "home," and "treatment," filtered for 2015 to 2025 publications. Searches occurred on September 12, 2024, and were updated on January 10, 2025. Study Selection: Eligibility screening was performed in 2 stages: title/abstract screening and full-text review. In each stage, articles were screened against the inclusion/exclusion criteria by 2 independent reviewers. Data Extraction: Using a customized spreadsheet, we extracted characteristics of the studies, demographic and clinical participant characteristics, gait treatment and assessment methodologies, and reported outcomes. One author extracted the data, and a second cross-checked for accuracy. Data Synthesis: The titles/abstracts of 1923 articles were screened, and 116 articles underwent full-text review. Sixty-two studies met the eligibility criteria. The studies were conducted in 22 countries and included 3008 adults with chronic or subacute stroke. Home-based rehabilitation was used as a standalone treatment in 61% of studies and paired with or immediately after another rehabilitation intervention in 39% of studies. Gait treatment approaches included technology-integrated home programs (34%), home-use devices (19%), individualized home rehabilitation (15%), self-management or coaching-based programs (13%), home rehabilitation delivered by trained nonclinicians (11%), and task-specific training variations (8%). Gait speed and endurance were the most common assessments. Measurements frequently occurred in clinical settings. At least 60% of studies within each category reported statistically significant or clinically meaningful impacts on specific gait outcomes. Conclusions: Home-based rehabilitation demonstrates global interest. Current evidence related to gait treatment is heterogeneous and shows a prevalence of technology and innovation for the home. A substantial number of preliminary studies suggest emerging treatment methods requiring robust, larger studies to determine the most beneficial treatments and contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.