Quick Overview
Scientists in England reviewed five randomised trials of 815 adults after stroke. They compared FES, a walking form of EMS, with ankle braces for foot-drop.
They timed the 10-metre walk, distance walked, timed up-and-go, and mobility scores. Checks ran from six weeks to twelve months. Both groups walked faster and farther than at the start. Step counts also rose with regular use.
The paper ran in the peer-reviewed Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. Authors were from Huddersfield and Salford. The numbers suggest supported walking with EMS can help after stroke. Read the full post for the tests, figures, and limits.
We always provide direct links to the original research at the end of every article so you can review the evidence yourself.
Β
Β
Stroke Walking Study: Electrical Stimulation Helped Hundreds Move With More Confidence
A large research review asked a simple question.
Can electrical stimulation help people walk after stroke?
The answer from the data was encouraging.
Β
Β
Foot-drop is common after stroke.
The toes catch.
Steps slow down.
Walking can feel unsafe.
Β
Β
Clinicians often use a brace called an ankle-foot orthosis.
Some also use functional electrical stimulation, or FES.
Many people know this family of tools as EMS.
FES sends timed pulses to the nerve that lifts the foot.
The pulse is meant to help the foot clear the ground.
This review compared that approach with a standard brace.
Who ran the study
Β
Β
The paper was led by Sarah Prenton.
She worked at the University of Huddersfield in England.
Co-authors were Kristen Hollands and Laurence Kenney.
They worked at the University of Salford.
Both are established United Kingdom universities.
The team used a public review protocol.
They followed PRISMA reporting rules.
They used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
Β
Β
The paper appeared in 2016 in the Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine.
That journal is peer-reviewed and indexed in MEDLINE.
It is owned by a Swedish non-profit foundation started in 1969.
Sweden has a long record in rehabilitation science.
This blog is reporting that published paper.
It is not selling a device.
It is not medical advice.
What the researchers did
Β
Β
They searched nine major databases.
They kept only English-language randomised controlled trials.
Seven papers met the rules.
Some papers came from the same trials.
That left five trials and 815 stroke adults.
Every participant was over 18.
Time since stroke ranged from weeks to almost seven years.
Some people already used a brace.
Others were new to both options.
Trials lasted from six weeks to twelve months.
People used the devices at home in several studies.
Some also had physiotherapy.
What they measured
Β
Β
The team looked at walking, not slogans.
The main tests were practical.
They measured 10-metre walking speed.
They measured how far people could walk in a set time.
They measured the timed up-and-go test.
They measured perceived mobility on the Stroke Impact Scale.
They also checked overlapping time points.
Those windows were about 4 to 6 weeks.
Then 12 to 13 weeks.
Then 26 to 30 weeks.
What the numbers showed
Β
Β
Both groups improved.
That is the bright finding.
Final 10-metre walk data covered 789 people.
The pooled difference between FES and braces was tiny.
Mean difference was 0.01 m/s.
The p-value was 0.79.
Β
Β
So the two aids were statistically similar at the last check.
Both sides of the comparison had moved forward from baseline.
Walking endurance was pooled for 761 people.
The standardised mean difference was -0.07.
The p-value was 0.31.
Again, the groups looked comparable.
Β
Β
Two trials used the timed up-and-go test.
Authors reported similar gains.
P-values were 0.812 and 0.539.
Perceived mobility used the Stroke Impact Scale.
That analysis included 701 people.
The mean difference was 0.31 points.
The p-value was 0.80.
In short, people using FES walked better than they had at the start.
People using braces did too.
Signs of real-world practice
Β
Β
One large trial counted daily steps.
After weeks of use, step counts rose in both groups.
In the FES arm, average steps moved from about 2,092 to 2,369.
That was from week 6 to week 30.
More safe steps means more walking practice.
The authors said task practice may help explain the gains.
Used during walking, FES can support that practice.
Β
Β
One smaller trial looked at gait details.
It reported some timing and kinematic differences favouring FES.
Those measures were not pooled across all five trials.
What this does not prove
Β
Β
The review did not show FES beating braces on the main walking tests.
The authors said that clearly.
Many people expected FES to win.
The pooled activity scores were even.
The trials only included adults after stroke.
Results should not be stretched to every diagnosis.
Device setup details were often thin.
Assessor blinding was a common weak point.
This is evidence about walking aids.
It is not a promise of recovery.
It is not a cure claim.
Why the paper still matters
Β
Β
Foot-drop can shrink a personβs world.
These trials measured speed, distance, sit-to-stand walking, and confidence.
Across 815 people, FES users improved on those measures.
The stimulation was used as a walking aid.
Several protocols encouraged regular daytime use.
The pattern fits a simple idea.
More supported walking practice can add up.
FES is a clinical tool.
A trained clinician should assess nerve response, skin, and gait.
A brace may still be the better fit for some people.
The review supports informed choice, not a sales pitch.
Source
Prenton S, Hollands KL, Kenney LPJ.
Functional electrical stimulation versus ankle foot orthoses for foot-drop: a meta-analysis of orthotic effects.
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2016;48:646β656.
doi: 10.2340/16501977-2136.
Talk with a doctor or physiotherapist before trying any stimulation device.
Individual results vary.
This article reports published research.
It does not advertise a product.
Like this Research Digest? π
Share it with your friends π¬π https://bit.ly/3VrGuBO
About Our Health Research Digest
We bring you the latest and most important health research papers β simplified and easy to understand.
Each study is broken down into clear, concise summaries and engaging podcasts, with direct links to the original research so you can explore further whenever you like.
We also create content based on your requests. If youβre curious about a specific health topic or would like us to find relevant studies, simplify the findings, and turn them into a podcast, just let us know.
Donβt hesitate to reach out β weβre here to help make health research accessible and useful for you. Contact us anytime.
Β
MoreΒ Β EMSΒ Β Research Scientists Are Studying
1. CanΒ EMSΒ Β reduce fat?Β
2. Can Β EMSΒ increaseΒ calorie burn while sitting?
3. Can Β EMSΒ support muscle toning and muscle gains?
4. Can Β EMSΒ Β improve athleticΒ training?
5. Can Β EMSΒ Β play a role in muscle loss & frailty?
6. Can Β EMSΒ reduce pain?Β
7.Β Β EMSΒ Β vs TENS: What are the differences?
8. CanΒ EMS Β play a role after stroke?
Research Summary
| Detail | What the paper reports |
|---|---|
| Full title | Functional electrical stimulation versus ankle foot orthoses for foot-drop: a meta-analysis of orthotic effects |
| Study type | Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, reported using PRISMA |
| Purpose | Compare combined-orthotic walking effects of FES (a walking form of EMS) with ankle-foot orthoses after a period of use |
| Authors | Sarah Prenton, Kristen L. Hollands, Laurence P. J. Kenney |
| Research centres | University of Huddersfield and University of Salford, United Kingdom |
| Journal | Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, volume 48, pages 646β656, 2016 |
| Publisher | Foundation of Rehabilitation Information / Medical Journals Sweden AB, Sweden |
| Identifiers | DOI 10.2340/16501977-2136; PMID 27563700; accepted 15 July 2016 |
| Original study links | Journal page Β· DOI Β· PubMed |
| Search sources | MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, REHABDATA, PEDro, NIHR CRD, clinicaltrials.gov, plus citation searches |
| Evidence pool | 7 eligible RCTs grouped into 5 synthesised trials; 815 adults after stroke |
| Who was studied | Adults over 18 with stroke-related foot-drop; time since stroke from 51.7 days to about 6.9 years |
| What was compared | Common-peroneal FES during walking versus AFO; surface systems in most trials, one implanted system |
| How progress was measured | 10 m walk speed, walking distance/endurance, timed up-and-go, Stroke Impact Scale mobility, plus some gait and activity-monitor data |
| Time points | Final assessment plus overlapping windows at 4β6 weeks, 12β13 weeks, and 26β30 weeks; one trial followed people to 12 months |
| Key walking-speed result | Final 10 m walk pooled from 789 people: mean difference 0.01 m/s, p = 0.79, showing comparable improvement |
| Other pooled results | Endurance in 761 people, p = 0.31; timed up-and-go p = 0.812 and 0.539; SIS mobility in 701 people, p = 0.80 |
| Extra practice signal | One large trial found daily steps rose with use; FES-group averages moved from about 2,092 to 2,369 steps |
| Main conclusion | FES and AFOs both showed positive combined-orthotic effects on key walking measures after stroke; effects were statistically similar |
| Limits noted by authors | Stroke-only sample, mixed device details, some bias risk, and a need for longer high-quality trials |
Β
Related Posts Worth Reading
-
2026 Study coauthored by John Hopskin University School of Medicine , Published in Stroke / American Heart Association journal article
Β
-
2015 Study - Published by BioMed Research International
Β
-
A 2017 systematic review in Systematic Reviews, published by BioMed Central
Β
-
2025 study published in Frontiers in Neurology by Frontiers Media, Switzerland.
-
2018 study published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Elsevier, Netherlands.
Β
-
2024 study published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Elsevier, Netherlands.
Β
-
2024 study published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation by Elsevier, Netherlands.
-
2025 study published in Progress in Rehabilitation Medicine by the Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine, Japan.
Β
-
-
2002 study published in Clinical Rehabilitation by SAGE Publications, United States.
-
2014 study published in Journal of Physiotherapy by Elsevier, Netherlands.
-
2013 Study Published by Stroke Journal, American Heart Association, United States
Β
-
2006 study published in the Australian Journal of Physiotherapy by Elsevier, Netherlands.
Β
-
2020 Study Published by Frontiers in NeuroscienceΒ
Β
-
2022 Study Published by Annals of Geriatric Medicine and Research
Β
Β
Β
-
2023 StudyΒ Published in theΒ International Journal of Physiotherapy
Β
-
2024 Study Published by The Rehabilitation Journal
Β
-
2022 Study Published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
Β
-
2021 Study Published by Journal of International Medical Research
Β
-
2025 study published by the Japanese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine.
Β
-
2025 Study published by Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Β
-
Β 2014 Study Published in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair.Β
Β
Β
-
Study Conducted onΒ 93 Stroke People Β Published on Neurorehabilitation and Neural RepairΒ
Β
-
Study conducted on 197 Stroke people , published in Stroke Journal, American Heart Association, United States
Β
-
2016 Study Conducted on 815 Stroke Survivors , Published by Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Β
Β
Β
Β
-
2025 Review Conducted on 933 People, Published by Disability and Rehabilitation, Taylor & Francis
Β
-
2017 Study, Published in Systematic Reviews, BioMed Central
Β
-
University of Glasgow Study Published in the American Heart Association journalΒ Stroke
Β
-
Study Conducted on 120 People After Stroke, Published in American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
-
2023 Study Published in Pain and Therapy (Adis / Springer Nature)
-
2020 Study Published in πππππππππ ππ π΅πππππππππππ.
-
2016 Study Published in The Society of Physical Therapy Science, published by IPEC Inc., Japan
Β
Β
Β
Disclaimer
This article is published forΒ general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, health advice, diagnosis, or treatment of any kind.
All content on this website, including any studies, research, or information mentioned, is provided for informational purposes only and does not imply or guarantee any specific health outcomes.
We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected in any way to any researchers, universities, research centres, journals, or institutions referenced in any article. No reference to any study, researcher, or publication should be interpreted as an endorsement or recommendation of any products sold or featured on this website.
Our products (and any products featured or linked in this article) are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, prevent, or manage any disease or medical condition. Individual results may vary significantly. No guarantees or warranties are made regarding effectiveness, safety, or specific outcomes.
Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before using any product mentioned on this website or making any changes to your health routine, especially if you have a pre-existing medical condition, are pregnant, breastfeeding, have a pacemaker, or are taking medication.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, ORIEMS FIT, its directors, employees, authors, affiliates, and agents disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, cost, expense, or injury (whether direct, indirect, consequential, special, or incidental) arising from the use of, or reliance upon, any information in this article or from the purchase or use of any products featured or sold on this website.
Β© [ORIEMS FIT] β All Rights Reserved.