↓ Skip to main content

Effects of virtual rehabilitation versus conventional physical therapy on postural control, gait, and cognition of patients with Parkinson’s disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled…

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
249 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of virtual rehabilitation versus conventional physical therapy on postural control, gait, and cognition of patients with Parkinson’s disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled feasibility trial
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40814-017-0210-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keyte Guedes Silva, Tatiana Beline De Freitas, Flávia Doná, Fernando Freitas Ganança, Henrique Ballalai Ferraz, Camila Torriani-Pasin, José Eduardo Pompeu

Abstract

There is an association among postural instability, gait dysfunction, and cognitive impairment in subjects with Parkinson's disease (PD). Difficulty in dividing attention, response inhibition, and visuospatial attention deficiencies may contribute to the impairment of motor performance during daily activities. There are strong evidences that physical therapy can prevent physical and cognitive decline in individuals with PD. Recently, the European Physiotherapy Guideline (EPG) was developed based on randomized clinical trials about the effectiveness of the physical therapy to improve the functional deficiencies of individuals with PD. The EPG did not include the use of promising new intervention as virtual reality in PD due the lack of studies about its safety, feasibility and effectiveness. Therefore, this study protocol had as objective to evaluate the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of a physical therapy program-based on the European Physiotherapy Guideline (EPG) compared to Kinect-based training on postural control, gait, cognition, and quality of life (QoL) of Individuals with PD. A single-blind, parallel, randomized, controlled feasibility trial will be conducted with a sample of 32 individuals diagnosed with idiopathic PD. Participants will be allocated into control group (CG) and experimental group (EG). The intervention of the CG will be conventional physical therapy, and the intervention of the EG will be a supervised practice of five Kinect games. Both groups will perform 14 sessions of 1 h each one, twice a week over 7 weeks. Process outcomes will be safety, feasibility, adherence, and acceptability. Safety will be assessed by the proportion of participants who experienced intervention-related adverse events or any serious adverse event during the study period. Feasibility will be assessed through the scores of the games recorded in all training sessions. Adherence will be assessed through the participant's attendance. Acceptability will be the motivation of the participants regarding the interventions. Clinical outcomes will be (1) postural control, (2) cognitive function, (3) balance, (4) gait, and (5) QoL. Individuals will be assessed pre- and post-interventions and after 30 days by a blinded evaluator. This protocol will clarify if an intervention based on Kinect games will be feasible, safe, and acceptable for individuals with PD compared to conventional physical therapy. We will verify whether the proposed interventions can improve clinical outcomes as postural control, gait, cognition, and QoL of individuals with PD. Our hypothesis is that both Kinect games and conventional physical therapy will be feasible, safe, and acceptable for individuals with PD and will promote positive clinical effects. The results of this feasibility study will be used to design a future definitive clinical trial. Unique identification number in WHO Trial Registration: U1111-1171-0371. Brazilian Clinical Trial Registration Number RBR-27kqv5, registration date: February, 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 249 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 16%
Student > Master 36 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 10%
Researcher 15 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 84 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 12%
Computer Science 13 5%
Psychology 13 5%
Neuroscience 11 4%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 100 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,923,510
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#806
of 1,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,306
of 439,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#30
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.