| Literature DB >> 31783740 |
Susan C Slade1, Martin Underwood2, Jennifer L McGinley3, Meg E Morris4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP) is the most frequent form of atypical Parkinsonism. Although there is preliminary evidence for the benefits of gait rehabilitation, balance training and oculomotor exercises in PSP, the quality of reporting of exercise therapies appears mixed. The current investigation aims to evaluate the comprehensiveness of reporting of exercise and physical activity interventions in the PSP literature.Entities:
Keywords: Atypical parkinsonism; Exercise; Progressive Supranuclear palsy; Rehabilitation
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31783740 PMCID: PMC6884751 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-019-1539-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurol ISSN: 1471-2377 Impact factor: 2.474
Intervention characteristics
| Study | Sample size | Study design | Setting | Exercise | Modality | Program duration | Dosage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clerici 2017, Italy [ | 24 | RCT | Rehabilitation hospital | Gait training - aerobic, intensive, motor-cognitive, goal based exercise | Treadmill versus Lokomat robotic treadmill | 4 weeks | 4 daily 1-h sessions, 5/week |
| Di Pancrazio 2013, Italy [ | 10 | Cohort study | Rehabilitation hospital | Weight relieving harness for walking (SPAD) plus vibration sensory stimulation (VISS) | Treadmill | 8 weeks | 3/week |
| Irons 2015, USA [ | 1 | Case study | Outpatient | Weight relieving harness for walking on a treadmill type elliptical walker/trainer | Elliptical cross trainer | 8 weeks | 3/week for a total of 24 sessions |
| Nicolai 2010, Germany [ | 8 | Cohort study | Outpatient | Dynamic exercises from 6 posture & balance categories with increasing difficulty & complexity | (1) sitting (2) standing (3) transfers (4) sway (5) reaching or stepping one direction (6) multi direction stepping with added limb movement | 6 weeks | 45 min sessions, 3/week |
| Sale 2014, Italy [ | 5 | Cohort study | Outpatient | Program of robot-assisted walking sessions for 20 - 45 min, 5 times a week for 4 weeks. | Walkway force platform | 4 weeks | 20-45 min, 5/week |
| Seamon 2017, USA [ | 1 | Case study | In-home | Virtual exer-gaming “YourShape” and mini games | Xbox Kinect | 6 weeks | 12 1-h sessions |
| Suteerawattananon 2002, USA [ | 1 | Case study | Research laboratory | Body weight supported unloaded gait | Pacer treadmill | 8 weeks | 1.5 h sessions, 3/week |
| Wallace 2013, USA [ | 1 | Case study | In-home | Weighted vest, with motion-capture technology, to improve movement and posture | Weighted vest on or off | Not reported | Not reported |
| Wittwer 2018, Australia | 5 | Case series | In-home | Gait training program and rhythmic auditory cues (RACs) | Cued exercises in sitting, standing, walking | 4 weeks | 30–60 min, 2/week |
| Zampieri 2008, Italy [ | 19 | Quasi RCT | Research laboratory | Exercises included tandem stance practice with eyes open and closed, turning 360° while marching in place; sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit practice on a chair. Treatment group received eye movement & visual awareness training | Balance vs balance + eye movement | 4 weeks | 1 h, 3/week |
| Zampieri 2009, Italy [ | 19 | Quasi RCT | Research laboratory | As above | Balance vs balance + eye movement | 4 weeks | 1 h, 3/week |
Study reporting of each CERT item
| CERT item | Clerici 2017 | Di Pancrazio 2013 | Irons 2015 | Nicolai 2010 | Sale 2014 | Seamon 2017 | Suteerawattanon 2002 | Wallace 2013 | Wittwer 2019 | Zampieri 2008 | Zampieri 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Equipment | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 2. Qualifications | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ✓ | ✓ | X |
| 3. Individual/Group | X | X | ✓ | X | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 4. Supervision | ✓ | X | X | X | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 5. Adherence | X | X | X | X | X | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | X |
| 6. Motivation | ✓ | X | X | X | X | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | X |
| 7a. Progression rule | X | X | ✓ | X | X | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X |
| 7b. Progression described | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | X | ✓ | X |
| 8. Exercise detail | X | X | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 9. Home program | X | X | X | X | X | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | X | X |
| 10. Non-exercise components | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ✓ | X | X |
| 11. Adverse events | X | X | X | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| 12. Setting | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 13. Intervention described | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 14a. Generic/tailored | X | X | X | ✓ | X | ✓ | ✓ | X | X | ✓ | ✓ |
| 14b.Tailoring method | X | X | ✓ | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X | ✓ |
| 15. Starting level | ✓ | X | ✓ | X | ✓ | X | ✓ | X | ✓ | X | X |
| 16a. Fidelity measure | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| 16b. Fidelity described | X | X | X | X | ✓ | X | X | X | X | X | X |
✓ reported CERT item, X did not report CERT item
Fig. 1Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template applied to included studies
Fig. 2Reporting quality of exercise interventions as assessed with the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT)