# Lower-Body Positive Pressure Treadmill Training for Pediatric Gait Disorders: A Scoping Review
## 3 Results
### Effect of Anti-Gravity Treadmill Training on Gait Parameters  
Gait-related outcomes were commonly measured during over-ground walking and included spatiotemporal parameters (i.e., walking speed, stride length, step length, cadence, etc.) and endurance. Some studies reported a significant effect of anti-gravity training, mainly on gait speed [11; 20; 22; 24; 25; 27; 28; 31], step length [11; 20; 28], cadence [11; 20] and walking endurance [20; 24; 25; 31]. Regarding walking endurance, [PERSON] et al. [20] observed a significant improvement after all three training modalities (AlterG, BWS and robotic training). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**Studies** & **Study Design** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** & **11** & **Total (\(V10\))** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [16] & Before/After & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 3 (low) \\ [PERSON] [21] & RCT & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 7 (high) \\ [PERSON] [22] & RCT & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 7 (high) \\ [PERSON] et al. [26] & Case study & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 2 (low) \\ [PERSON] [11] & RCT & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 8 (high) \\ [PERSON] et al. [27] & Multiple case studies & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 2 (low) \\ [PERSON] et al. [23] & Multiple case studies & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 (low) \\ [PERSON] et al. [28] & RCT & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 3 (low) \\ [PERSON] et al. [29] & Multiple case studies & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 2 (low) \\ [PERSON] et al. [30] & Multiple case studies & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 2 (low) \\ [PERSON] et al. [31] & Controlled cases study & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 2 (low) \\ [PERSON] et al. [15] & RCT & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 4 (low) \\ [PERSON] et al. [32] & Before/After & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 (low) \\ [PERSON] et al. [25] & RCT & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 7 (high) \\ [PERSON] et al. [24] & NECG & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 (low) \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* **NOTE.** RCT: randomized controlled trial; NECG: nonequivalent control-group. The PEDro scale consists of 11 items: Item 1. eligibility criteria were specified. Item 2. subjects were randomly allocated to groups. Item 3. allocation was concealed. Item 4. The groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators. Items 5–7. There was blinding of all subjects, therapists and assessors. Item 8. Measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups. Item 9. All subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome were analyzed by “intention-to-treat”. Item 10. The results of between-group statistical comparisons are reported for at least one key outcome. Item 11. The study provides both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome. Each item is scored as a “yes” or “no”, worth 1 or 0 points, respectively. The total score expressed on a 10-point scale. The first item is not included in the sum of the total score of the PEDro scale.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Results of methodological quality of articles using the PEDro score.