Table 1 Details of the articles used in the final analysis

de David et al.2015 [23]

Overground

1.61, 2.09

Diop et al. 2005 [24]

94

7.3 (0.6)

Treadmill

0.75, 1.0, 1.25

Dubbeldam et al. 2010 [25]

Overground

0.81, 1.28

Giarmatzis et al. 2015 [26]

Treadmill

0.83, 1.25, 1.67

Hsiao et al. 2015 [27]

Treadmill

1.08, 1.30

Kerrigan et al. 1998 [28]

31

72.5 (5.5)

Overground

1.37, 1.19, 1.55

Khan et al. 2017 [29]

Overground

0.85, 1.18, 1.43

Kwon et al. 2015 [30]

Overground

1.00, 1.50, 2.00

Lewek 2011 [31]

Treadmill

0.60, 1.20, 1.60

Linden et al. 2002 [32]

36

9 (0.6)

Overground

0.75, 1.21

Monaco et al. 2009 [33]

8

70.4 (5.3)

Treadmill

0.77, 1.13

Ridge et al. 2016 [34]

14

14.4 (2.1)

Overground

1.23, 1.87

Riley et al. 2001 [35]

Overground

0.87, 1.19, 1.74

Robbins et al. 2009 [36]

Overground

1.19, 1.39, 1.60

Schwartz et al. 2008 [7]

83

10.5 (3.5)

Overground

0.65, 1.15, 1.56

Silder et al. 2008 [37]

20

72.5 (5)

Overground

1.06, 1.33, 1.59

Wang et al. 2017 [38]

Overground

1.1, 1.4, 1.7

Weinhandl et al. 2017 [39]

Overground

1.21, 1.34, 1.48

Winiarski et al. 2019 [40]

Overground

1.04, 1.32, 1.62

Yang et al. 2013 [41]

Treadmill

0.40, 0.93, 1.47