Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background/Objectives: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that impairs mobility. Treadmill training (TT) is a common rehabilitation strategy for improving gait parameters in individuals with PD. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of TT in improving motor function, walking ability, and overall functional mobility in PD patients. Methods: We compared TT to other forms of gait and motor rehabilitation, including conventional and robotic gait training. Trials that compared a treadmill training group with a non-intervention group were excluded from this review. We searched multiple databases for RCTs involving Parkinson's patients until January 2025. The primary outcomes were motor function (UPDRS-III) and walking ability (6 MWT and TUG test). Results: We identified 285 articles; 199 were excluded after screening. We assessed the full text of 86 articles for eligibility, and 13 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Some of them were included in the meta-analysis. The TT group showed a significant improvement in UPDRS-III scores [mean difference (MD): -1.36 (95% CI: -2.60 to -0.11)] and greater improvement in TUG performance [MD, -1.75 (95% CI: -2.69 to -0.81)]. No significant difference in walking capacity as assessed through the 6 MWT was observed [MD: 26.03 (95% CI: -6.72 to 58.77). Conclusions: The current study suggests that TT is effective in improving the motor symptoms and functional mobility associated with PD. Further studies are needed to develop protocols that consider the patients' clinical characteristics, disease stage, exercise tolerance, and respiratory function.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.