No trials blinded participants or therapists, which would have be

No trials blinded participants or therapists, which would have been difficult due to the type of intervention. Participants: The four trials included 92 people with Parkinson’s disease. The mean age of participants across trials ranged from 57 to 75.7 years. The severity of the disease ranged from 1.8 to 2.5 on the Hoehn and Yahr scale. Only three trials

reported the Hoehn and Yahr scores ( Hirsch et al 2003, Dibble et al 2006, Schilling et al 2010) and only 2 trials reported gender. Intervention: The trials examined three short-term interventions that ranged from 2 to 3 months ( Schilling et al 2010, Hirsch et al 2003, Dibble et al 2006) and one long-term intervention of 6 months ( Allen et al 2010a). Progressive resistance exercise training was carried out over 2–3 days/week. In one trial, Lapatinib intensity was high at 60–80% of the 4 Repetition Maximum with low (1 set of 12) repetitions ( Hirsch et al 2003). Two trials used the perceived exertion rating to gradually

increase the intensity from very, very light to hard or heavy ( Allen et al 2010a, Dibble et al 2006). One trial HKI-272 purchase set the intensity at the maximal effort carried out to volitional fatigue ( Schilling et al 2010). Two trials used standard-care controls, ie, people engaged in an existing rehabilitation program appropriate for their disease and impairments, such as walking on a treadmill ( Dibble et al 2006) or balance training ( Hirsch et al 2003). Participants in the control groups of the remaining trials were instructed to continue their standard care ( Schilling et al 2010) or received usual care from their medical practitioner and community services ( Allen et al 2010a). Outcome measures: Strength these was reported as a continuous measure of maximum voluntary force or torque production

in three trials ( Allen et al 2010a, Dibble et al 2006, Schilling et al 2010). The remaining trial only reported submaximal voluntary force as a strength outcome measure ( Hirsch et al 2003). Physical performance was measured in all four trials. One trial (Schilling et al 2010) used the Timed Up and Go Test, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale, and the 6-minute walk test. One trial (Hirsch et al 2003) used the EquiTest Score to measure balance. One trial (Dibble et al 2006) measured physical performance using the 6-minute walk test and the time to ascend and descend stairs. The last trial (Allen et al 2010a) measured sit-to-stand time and walking velocity as separate physical performance outcome measures, along with the Short Physical Performance Battery, which incorporates tests of standing balance, sitto-stand time, and walking velocity. Table 2 summarises the included trials.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>