↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Treadmill training for patients with Parkinson's disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

8 tweeters
1 Facebook page
1 Google+ user


75 Dimensions

Readers on

366 Mendeley
Treadmill training for patients with Parkinson's disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007830.pub4
Pubmed ID

Jan Mehrholz, Joachim Kugler, Alexander Storch, Marcus Pohl, Kathleen Hirsch, Bernhard Elsner


Treadmill training is used in rehabilitation and is described as improving gait parameters of patients with Parkinson's disease. To assess the effectiveness of treadmill training in improving the gait of patients with Parkinson's disease and the acceptability and safety of this type of therapy. We searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Specialised Register (see Review Group details for more information) (last searched September 2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1950 to September 2014), and EMBASE (1980 to September 2014). We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings, searched trials and research registers, and checked reference lists (last searched September 2014). We contacted trialists, experts and researchers in the field and manufacturers of commercial devices. We included randomised controlled trials comparing treadmill training with no treadmill training in patients with Parkinson's disease. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted the trialists for additional information. We analysed the results as mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables and relative risk differences (RD) for dichotomous variables. We included 18 trials (633 participants) in this update of this review. Treadmill training improved gait speed (MD = 0.09 m/s; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.14; P = 0.001; I(2) = 24%; moderate quality of evidence), stride length (MD = 0.05 metres; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; P = 0.01; I(2) = 0%; low quality of evidence), but walking distance (MD = 48.9 metres; 95% CI -1.32 to 99.14; P = 0.06; I(2) = 91%; very low quality of evidence) and cadence did not improve (MD = 2.16 steps/minute; 95% CI -0.13 to 4.46; P = 0.07; I(2) = 28%; low quality of evidence) at the end of study. Treadmill training did not increase the risk of patients dropping out from intervention (RD = -0.02; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02; P = 0.32; I(2) = 13%; moderate quality of evidence). Adverse events were not reported in included studies. This update of our systematic review provides evidence from eighteen trials with moderate to low risk of bias that the use of treadmill training in patients with PD may improve clinically relevant gait parameters such as gait speed and stride length (moderate and low quality of evidence, respectively). This apparent benefit for patients is, however, not supported by all secondary variables (e.g. cadence and walking distance). Comparing physiotherapy and treadmill training against other alternatives in the treatment of gait hypokinesia such as physiotherapy without treadmill training this type of therapy seems to be more beneficial in practice without increased risk. The gain seems small to moderate clinically relevant. However, the results must be interpreted with caution because it is not known how long these improvements may last and some studies used no intervention in the control group and underlie some risk of bias. Additionally the results were heterogenous and we found variations between the trials in patient characteristics, the duration and amount of training, and types of treadmill training applied.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 366 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 362 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 69 19%
Student > Bachelor 52 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 8%
Researcher 27 7%
Other 72 20%
Unknown 86 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 74 20%
Neuroscience 21 6%
Sports and Recreations 19 5%
Psychology 12 3%
Other 54 15%
Unknown 98 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2017.
All research outputs
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 268,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 278 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 278 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.