Romenets et al.2828 Romenets SR, Anang J, Fereshtehnejad SM, Pelletier A, Postuma R. Tango for treatment of motor andnon-motor manifestations in Parkinson'sdisease: randomized control study. Complement Ther Med. 2015;23(2):175-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2015.01.015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2015.01...
|
n = 33 TDG = 18 63.2 ± 9.9 CG = 15 64.3 ± 8.1 |
1 - 3 TDG 5.5 ± 4.4 CG 7.7 ± 4.6 |
ON |
TDG: Tango Dance, 60’ group sessions, 2 times per week, during 12 weeks. CG: Daily home-based exercises. |
Tango Dance |
TUG (sec) DT-TUG score Walking with pivot turns |
Significant group x time interaction (p = 0.042); TDG ↑ in comparison to CG. Significant group x time interaction (p = 0.012); TDG ↑ in comparison to CG. Non-significant trend group x time interaction (p = 0.066); TDG ↑ in comparison to CG. |
Duncan & Earhart2525 Duncan RP, Earhart GM. Controlled Trial of Community-Based Dancing to Modify Disease Progression in in Parkinson Disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012;26(2):132-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1177/1545968311421614
http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1177/15459683114...
|
n = 52 TDG = 26 69.3 ± 1.9 CG = 26 69.0 ± 1.5 |
TDG=1-4 5.8 ± 1.1 CG = 2-4 7.0 ± 1.0 |
ON during intervention OFF during assessments |
TDG: Tango Dance, 60’ group sessions, 2 times per week, during 24 months. CG: No prescribed exercise. Assessment: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. |
Tango Dance |
FoGQ Gait Speed 6MWT |
Significant group x time interaction (p = 0.006); TDG maintained performance while CG ↓ after 12 months. Significant group x time interaction for forward walking (p = 0.04) and DT walking (p = 0.02); TDG ↑ in comparison to CG at 6 and 12 months. Significant interaction (p = 0.02); TDG maintained performance while CG ↓ after 12 months. |
Duncan & Earhart2626 Duncan RP, Earhart GM. Are the Effects of Community-Based Dance on Parkinson Disease Severity, Balance, and Functional Mobility Reduced with Time? A 2-Year Prospective Pilot Study. J Altern Complement Med. 2014; 20(10):757-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1089/acm.2012.0774
http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1089/acm.2012.07...
|
n = 10 TDG = 5 69.6 ± 6.6 CG = 5 66 ± 11 |
TDG = 2-3 6.6 ± 7.5 CG = 2-2,5 11 ± 3.9 |
ON during intervention OFF during assessments |
TDG: Tango Dance, 60’ group sessions, 2 times per week, during 24 months. CG: No prescribed exercise. Assessment: Baseline, 12 and 24 months. |
Tango Dance |
DT-TUG 6MWT |
Significant group x time interaction (p = 0.048); TDG ↑ in comparison to CG, although there were no significant between group differences at any time point. Significant group x time interaction (p = 0.013); TDG maintained performance while CG ↓ after 24 months. |
de Bruin et al.2929 de Bruin N, Doan JB, Turnbull G, Suchowersky O, Bonfield S, Hu B, et al. Walking with music is a safe and viable tool for gait training in PD:The effect of a 13-week feasibility study on single and dual task walking. Parkinsons Dis. 2010;2010:483530. http://dx.doi.org/10.10.4061/2010/483530
http://dx.doi.org/10.10.4061/2010/483530...
|
n = 22 MG = 11 64.1 ± 4.2 CG = 11 67.0 ± 8.1 |
MG = 2-3 6.4 ± 4.2 CG = 2-2.5 4.5 ± 3.3 |
ON |
MG: 30’ walking at a comfortable pace, while listening self-selected music, 3 times per week, during 13 weeks. Patients also performed their regular activities. CG: continued their usual routine during 13 weeks. Both groups reported daily activities and eventual falls. Assessment: 10 meter self-paced walked in 2 conditions - simple task (without any other task) and DT (while performing serial 3 subtractions). |
Walking while Listening to Music |
Gait Speed Cadence Stride Time |
Significant ↑ in the MG (p = 0.002); Non-significant trend task x time interaction favoring the DT condition in the MG (p = 0.081); No changes or interaction in the CG. Significant ↑ in the MG (p = 0.007); Non-significant trend task x time interaction favoring the DT condition in the MG (p = 0.056); No changes or interaction in the CG. Significant ↑ in the MG (p = 0.019); Non-significant trend task x time interaction favoring the DT condition in the MG (p = 0.062); No changes or interaction in the CG. |
Fok et al.3131 Fok P, Farrel M, McMeeken J. Prioritizing gait in dual-task conditions in people with Parkinson's. Hum Mov Sci. 2010;29(5):831-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1016/j.humov.2010.06.005
http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1016/j.humov.201...
|
n = 12 TG = 6 66.8 ± 9.0 CG = 6 57.7 ± 12.3 |
TG = 2.5-3.5 4.2 ± 2.4 CG = 1.5-3.5 5.5 ± 3.8 |
ON |
TG: DT walking training using gait prioritization, 30’ single session.Participants walked using big steps while performing a series of -3 subtractions. Subjects instructed to totally focus on big steps. CG: 30 minute sitting down reading magazine Assessment: Simple tasks (walking and subtractions alone) and DT (walking plus subtractions). Two trials in each condition at baseline, immediately after training and 30 minutes after (retention). |
DT walking training (subtraction cognitive task) |
Stride Length Gait Speed |
Significant time x group x task interaction after training ( p = 0.03); TG ↑ in comparison to CG; Non-significant trend task x time interaction favoring the DT condition ( p = 0.08). Significant time x group x task interaction after training ( p = 0.03); TG ↑ in comparison to CG; Significant task x time interaction favoring the DT condition ( p = 0.001). |
Fok et al.3232 Fok P, Farrel M, McMeeken J. The effect of dividing attention between walking and auxiliary tasks in people with Parkinson's disease. Hum Mov Sci. 2012;31(1):236-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1016/j.humov.2011.05.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1016/j.humov.201...
|
n = 12 TG = 6 73 ± 12 CG = 6 66.3 ± 11.7 |
TG = 2.5 - 3 3.9 ± 2.4 CG = 2 - 3.5 3.5 ± 2.6 |
ON |
TG: DT walking training using divided attention, 30’ single session. Participants walked using big steps while performing a series of -3 subtractions. Subjects instructed to divide their attention on both tasks. CG: 30 minute sitting down reading magazine. Assessment: Simple tasks (walking and subtractions alone) and DT (walking plus subtractions). Two trials in each condition at baseline, immediately after training and 30 minutes after (retention). |
DT walking training (subtraction cognitive task) |
Stride Length Gait Speed |
Significant time x group interaction ( p = 0.001); TG ↑in comparison to CG; No significant time x group x task interaction. Significant time x group interaction ( p = 0.001); TG ↑in comparison to CG; No significant time x group x task interaction. |
Rochester et al.3030 Rochester L, Baker K, Hetherington V, Jones D, Willems AM, Kwakkel G, et al. Evidence for motor learning in Parkinson's disease: Acquisition, automaticity and retention of cued gait performance after training with external rhythmical cues. Brain Res. 2010;10(1319):103-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1016/j.brainres.2010.01.001
http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1016/j.brainres....
|
n = 153 eERC = 7667.5 lERC = 77 69 |
eERC = 2.5 - 3 7 years lERC = 2.5 - 3 8 years |
ON |
Cross-Design ERC intervention Study ERC: External rhythmical cueing training, 30’ sessions, 3 times per week, during 3 weeks. Auditory, visual and somatosensory cues were used: -eERC started the intervention immediately (week 1); -lERC started the intervention at week 4. Assessment: DT, walking with a tray with 2 glasses of water; Simple Task, walking without tray. Assessment at baseline, after both training periods and 6 week follow-up. |
External Rhythmical Cueing Training |
Gait Speed Step length Cadence |
↑ On Simple Task with visual (p = 0.03), auditory (p = 0.02) and somatosensory (p = 0.0004) cues. ↑ On DT with visual ↑ On DT with visual (p = 0.002), auditory (p = 0.03) and somatosensory (p = 0.0004) cues and non-cue (p = 0.04)., auditory (p = 0.03) and somatosensory (p = 0.0004) cues and non-cue (p = 0.04). ↑ On Simple Task with visual (p = 0.001), auditory (p = 0.005) and somatosensory (p = 0.002) cues and non-cue (p = 0.023). ↑ On DT with visual (p = 0.001), auditory (p = 0.01) and somatosensory (p = 0.0004) cues and non-cue (p = 0.004). ↑ On Simple Task without cue (p = 0.03). On DT with visual (p = 0.002), auditory (p = 0.03) and somatosensory (p = 0.0004) cues and non-cue (p = 0.04). |
