Quick Overview
A 2014 US clinical trial tested peroneal-nerve functional electrical stimulation, a targeted form of EMS, against an ankle-foot brace in 495 people with chronic stroke and foot drop.
Teams at 30 centres measured gait speed, six-minute distance, obstacle walking, balance, and quality-of-life scores for six months.
Both groups gained about 0.19 m/s, a roughly 40 percent rise in walking speed. FES matched the brace on primary outcomes and improved some functional tasks within its own group.
Published in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair by Cleveland Clinic and other hospitals, the data suggest targeted EMS can aid walking after stroke.
The full post has the exact numbers, safety findings, and limits.
We always provide direct links to the original research at the end of every article so you can review the evidence yourself.
Stroke Survivors Walked Faster After Targeted Leg Stimulation, Large US Trial Finds
Foot drop can make every step feel uncertain after a stroke.
Many people drag the affected foot. Walking slows. Falls become a real worry.
A large clinical trial asked a simple question. Could functional electrical stimulation, a targeted form of EMS, help as much as a walking brace?
The answer from this study was encouraging.
Who ran the research
This was not a small lab note.
It was a randomised controlled trial. It ran at 30 rehabilitation centres across the United States.
The paper was published in 2014 in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. That is a peer-reviewed scientific journal from SAGE.
Lead author Francois Bethoux, MD, worked at Cleveland Clinic. Other investigators came from university hospitals, Veterans Affairs centres, and specialist rehab institutes.
The trial is listed as NCT01087957. That public record helps readers check the design.
These details matter. They show the write-up below comes from published science, not guesswork.
Who took part
Researchers screened 761 people. They enrolled 495 adults who were eligible for Medicare.
Everyone was at least six months after stroke. On average, they were about 6.9 years after onset.
All had foot drop. At the start, they walked slower than 0.8 metres per second on a 10-metre test.
Three hundred and ninety-nine people finished six months. That is a large completed group for this kind of walking study.
What people used
One group used the WalkAide FES system. It is a cuff on the lower leg.
Surface electrodes stimulate the peroneal nerve. That timed pulse lifts the foot in the swing phase of walking.
The other group used an ankle-foot orthosis, the usual brace for foot drop.
People followed a two-week wearing plan. Then they were asked to use the device for walking through the day.
This trial tested a specific walking device. It did not test every consumer EMS belt on the market.
What the team measured
They tracked walking speed on the 10-metre walk test.
They also used a Stroke Impact Scale composite. It combined mobility, daily activities, and social participation.
Safety was a primary endpoint. The team counted device-related serious adverse events.
Secondary tests included the 6-minute walk, GaitRite walking quality, the modified Emory functional walking tasks, Berg balance, Timed Up and Go, and quality-of-life scales.
In plain terms, they measured speed, endurance, real-world walking tasks, balance, and how life felt.
The main walking result
Both groups walked faster after six months.
In the FES group, mean speed rose from 0.449 m/s to 0.635 m/s. That was a gain of 0.186 m/s.
In the brace group, speed rose from 0.487 m/s to 0.682 m/s. That was a gain of 0.195 m/s.
Those gains sat above commonly cited meaningful change levels for gait after stroke.
The FES group improved by about 41 percent from its starting speed. The brace group improved by about 40 percent.
The between-group difference was tiny: 0.009 m/s. The 95 percent confidence interval ran from −0.04 to 0.06.
Researchers set a non-inferiority margin of 0.2 m/s. FES met that test. It was not worse than the brace on speed.
Average speeds also moved from “most-limited community walking” toward “least-limited community walking” on Perry’s categories.
That shift is one reason the speed change matters in daily life.
Quality of life and daily function
The FES group’s composite Stroke Impact Scale score rose from 170.0 to 175.0. That was a 5-point gain.
The brace group rose from 168.8 to 172.7.
FES was again non-inferior on this composite. The margin allowed was 15 points.
The composite change was statistically significant inside the FES group. It did not reach the larger change some papers call clinically important.
So the signal was real, but modest on that particular score.
Functional walking tasks
Here the FES group showed several within-group gains.
Total modified Emory walking time fell from 594.0 seconds to 498.0 seconds. That was a 96-second improvement.
Floor walking time fell by 12.0 seconds. Obstacle-course time fell by 42.6 seconds.
GaitRite functional ambulation profile rose from 59.8 to 65.6.
Berg balance rose by 2.6 points in the FES group.
After a strict Bonferroni correction, those within-group changes reached significance for several FES measures. Between-group differences did not.
The study still treated FES as equivalent overall, not proven superior.
Safety findings
Device-related serious events were rare.
None were reported in the FES group. Two were reported in the brace group.
Falls were common in both groups, as they often are after stroke. They were not clearly different by device.
Skin irritation was reported more often with FES than with the brace. That is a practical point for anyone considering stimulation.
Overall, the authors called both options low risk for serious device harm in this trial.
What this does — and does not — prove
This paper supports a bright, careful claim.
In people with chronic stroke and foot drop, six months of peroneal-nerve FES matched a standard brace on walking speed and on the chosen quality-of-life composite.
Both groups made meaningful speed gains. That is the strongest good-news finding.
Some extra improvements showed up inside the FES group on obstacle walking, floor walking, gait quality, and balance scores.
The authors said FES should be considered a viable alternative to bracing for the right patient.
They also said not every person with foot drop can use it. The nerve must respond. The person must tolerate the stimulus.
The trial did not show that “more stimulation is always better.” People used a prescribed walking device, not unlimited extra sessions.
It also did not test abdominal EMS, fitness belts, or do-it-yourself programs.
Different devices stimulate different nerves and muscles. Results from this walking system should not be copied onto every stimulator.
Why the source is worth reading
The work came from established hospitals and research centres.
It used random assignment. It followed people for six months. It analysed hundreds of participants.
It was published in a specialist rehabilitation journal, not an advert.
That is why a blog can discuss it as science. The paper is public. The methods are described. The numbers are in the tables.
A practical note
This summary is education about one published trial. It is not a treatment prescription.
Stroke care is individual. Devices used for walking problems may be regulated as medical products.
If you or someone you love has foot drop after stroke, speak with a doctor, neurologist, or physiotherapist. Ask whether FES or a brace is appropriate. Ask which device, if any, is suitable.
Do not start electrical stimulation after stroke on the basis of a blog post alone.
The hopeful takeaway is still clear. In this large US trial, targeted electrical stimulation during walking helped many people move faster. It did so on par with the usual brace. For the right person, that is a useful option to discuss with a clinician.
Featured Product
ORIEMS FIT ULTIMATE KIT 💪 is a 100% Australian award-winning product.
Voted YEAR’S BEST ⭐ for 2024 and 2025.
It is a wide-range targeted muscle stimulator enhanced with EMS technology, designed to support your fitness and relaxation routine. 🌟
Trusted by more than 10,000 happy users with over 450 five-star Google reviews. 😊
Check availability.
Product Disclaimer:
This product is designed only to support fitness and relaxation routines. It is not a medical device and has not been evaluated or registered by the TGA. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease or medical condition. It may not be suitable for everyone. Please consult your doctor or healthcare practitioner before using it.
Like this Research Digest? 📚
Share it with your friends 💬👇 https://bit.ly/4r6MtrL
About Our Health Research Digest
We bring you the latest and most important health research papers — 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 you’re 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.
Don’t hesitate to reach out — we’re here to help make health research accessible and useful for you. Contact us anytime.
More EMS Research Scientists Are Studying
1. Can EMS reduce fat?
2. Can EMS increase calorie burn while sitting?
3. Can EMS support muscle toning and muscle gains?
4. Can EMS improve athletic training?
5. Can EMS play a role in muscle loss & frailty?
6. Can EMS reduce pain?
7. EMS vs TENS: What are the differences?
8. Can EMS play a role after stroke?
Research Summary
| Topic | What the study reported |
|---|---|
| Full paper | Bethoux et al., “The Effects of Peroneal Nerve Functional Electrical Stimulation Versus Ankle-Foot Orthosis in Patients With Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 2014;28(7):688–697. |
| Original study links | SAGE journal page · PubMed 24526708 · DOI 10.1177/1545968314521007 |
| Trial registry | ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01087957 (INSTRIDE). |
| Publisher | SAGE; peer-reviewed specialist journal in neurorehabilitation. |
| Research team | Lead author Francois Bethoux, MD, Cleveland Clinic, with investigators from US university hospitals, VA centres, and rehabilitation institutes. |
| Design | Unblinded, parallel-group randomised controlled trial at 30 US centres. Primary tests used non-inferiority; analysis was intention-to-treat with multiple imputation. |
| Sample | 761 screened, 495 enrolled, 399 completed six months (187 FES, 212 AFO). |
| Participants | Medicare-eligible adults at least 6 months after stroke, with foot drop and screening 10-metre speed no faster than 0.8 m/s. Mean time since stroke about 6.9 years. |
| Devices tested | WalkAide peroneal-nerve FES versus a custom or standard-of-care ankle-foot orthosis, used for daily walking after a 2-week wearing schedule. |
| Primary endpoints | 10-Metre Walk Test, SIS composite (Mobility + ADL/IADL + Social Participation), and device-related serious adverse events. |
| Other endpoints | 6-minute walk, GaitRite FAP, modified Emory walking tasks, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go, individual SIS domains, and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life. |
| Gait-speed result | FES rose from 0.449 to 0.635 m/s (+0.186). AFO rose from 0.487 to 0.682 m/s (+0.195). Both groups improved. FES met non-inferiority versus a −0.2 m/s margin. |
| Quality-of-life composite | FES SIS composite rose 5.0 points (170.0 to 175.0). AFO rose 3.9 points. FES met non-inferiority versus a −15-point margin. |
| Functional walking and balance | Within the FES group: mEFAP total −96.0 s, floor time −12.0 s, obstacle course −42.6 s, FAP +5.8, Berg balance +2.6. Between-group differences were not significant after correction. |
| Safety | Device-related serious events: none in FES, two in AFO. Falls were common in both groups. Skin irritation was reported more often with FES. |
| Authors’ conclusion | FES was equivalent to AFO on the primary endpoints and was described as a viable alternative for suitable people with foot drop after chronic stroke. |
| Limits | Assessments were unblinded; about 20% exited early; device wear was not systematically tracked; follow-up was 6 months; FES requires an adequate dorsiflexion response. This trial tested a walking FES system, not every EMS product. |
| Funding and disclosures | Sponsored by Innovative Neurotronics. A co-author was a company employee; the lead author disclosed consulting linked to the trial. |
Disclaimer
This article is published for 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.
© [ORIEMS FIT] – All Rights Reserved.
