| Literature DB >> 31275542 |
Jinghong Ma1, Linlin Gao2,3, Taomian Mi4, Junyan Sun2,3, Piu Chan1,2,3,4,5,6, Tao Wu2,3,5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The sequence effect (SE) is a reason contributing to freezing of gait (FOG) in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. There is no effective treatment for the SE. The objective of the current study is to investigate the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on the SE in PD patients with FOG.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31275542 PMCID: PMC6589230 DOI: 10.1155/2019/2196195
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parkinsons Dis ISSN: 2042-0080
Figure 1Flow of participants.
Figure 2Comparison of the sequence effect between and within the groups.
|
| Real group (mean ± SD) | Sham group (mean ± SD) | MMRM |
| Post hoc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.611 ± 0.319 | −0.521 ± 0.422 | Group | 0.782 | Real | Sham |
|
| −0.718 ± 0.446 | −0.797 ± 0.591 | Visit | 0.287 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
|
| −0.539 ± 0.670 | −0.508 ± 0.397 | Group | 0.641 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
|
| −0.744 ± 0.820 | −0.385 ± 0.185 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
|
| −0.281 ± 0.731 | −0.430 ± 0.348 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
|
| −0.644 ± 0.531 | −0.612 ± 0.267 | 1.000 | 1.000 | ||
Post hoc: comparing with T 0; T : time points; SD: standard deviation; MMRM: mixed effect model repeated measures.
Figure 3Mean change of the real and sham group with the time points.
Changes of clinical and gait assessments across the study.
| MMRM | DF |
|
|
| Post hoc ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real group | Sham group | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Group | 1 | 0.280 | 0.601 |
| 0.003 | 1.000 |
| Visit | 2 | 3.641 | 0.033 |
| 0.023 | 1.000 |
| Group | 2 | 3.445 | 0.039 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Group | 1 | 0.941 | 0.341 |
| 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Visit | 5 | 3.576 | 0.005 |
| 0.038 | 1.000 |
| Group | 5 | 1.158 | 0.334 |
| 0.002 | 1.000 |
|
| 0.000 | 1.000 | ||||
|
| 0.004 | 1.000 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Group | 1 | 8.535 | 0.007 |
| 0.048 | 1.000 |
| Visit | 5 | 2.919 | 0.016 |
| 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Group | 5 | 3.158 | 0.010 |
| 0.004 | 1.000 |
|
| 0.000 | 1.000 | ||||
|
| 0.000 | 1.000 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Group | 1 | 0.721 | 0.404 |
| 0.241 | 1.000 |
| Visit | 5 | 3.214 | 0.009 |
| 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Group | 5 | 2.788 | 0.020 |
| 0.178 | 1.000 |
|
| 0.021 | 1.000 | ||||
|
| 0.000 | 1.000 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Group | 1 | 7.834 | 0.010 |
| 0.871 | 1.000 |
| Visit | 5 | 2.008 | 0.082 |
| 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Group | 5 | 2.446 | 0.038 |
| 0.090 | 1.000 |
|
| 0.007 | 1.000 | ||||
|
| 0.009 | 1.000 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Group | 1 | 6.471 | 0.018 |
| 0.190 | 1.000 |
| Visit | 1 | 4.890 | 0.000 |
| 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Group | 5 | 3.381 | 0.007 |
| 0.010 | 1.000 |
|
| 0.000 | 1.000 | ||||
|
| 0.000 | 1.000 | ||||
T : test number; post hoc: comparing with T 0; MMRM: mixed effect model repeated measures; DF: degree of freedom. p < 0.05.
Figure 4Change of each trail and examination. These results indicated that the real rTMS has an improved effect on (a) FOG-Q, (b) MDS-UPDRS III, (c) ambulation time, (d) cadence, (e) step count, and (f) velocity.