| Literature DB >> 32089815 |
Agata Wróblewska1, Agata Gajos1, Urszula Smyczyńska2, Andrzej Bogucki1.
Abstract
Introduction. The effectiveness of the currently utilized therapies for FoG is limited. Several studies demonstrated a beneficial impact of Nordic walking (NW) on several gait parameters in Parkinson's disease, but only one paper reported reduction of freezing. Research Question. In the present study, the question is whether NW is an effective therapeutic intervention in FoG.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 32089815 PMCID: PMC7024088 DOI: 10.1155/2019/3846279
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parkinsons Dis ISSN: 2042-0080
Baseline patients' characteristics.
| All patients | NW group | Control |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 40 | 20 (8 males) | 20 (9 males) | 0.53 (Fisher's exact test) |
| Age (years), mean ± SD (range) | 69.8 ± 7.3 (58–84) | 72.1 ± 7.5 (58–84) | 67.6 ± 6.6 (58–82) | 0.051 ( |
| Duration of disease (years), mean ± SD (range) | 5.6 ± 1.2 (4–8) | 5.2 ± 1.1 (4–7) | 6.0 ± 1.2 (4–8) | 0.04 (Mann–Whitney test) |
| H-Y | II in 20 patients | II in 9 patients, | II in 11 patients | 0.75 (Mood's median test) |
| UPDRS III (range) | 32.3 ± 7.3 (17–47) | 32.7 ± 6.9 (21–46) | 32.0 ± 7.7 (17–47) | 0.76 ( |
Figure 1Freezing of Gait Questionnaire scores in the NW and control groups at different timepoints. In all boxplots, the median is presented together with interquartile range; whiskers represent the 5th and 95th centile.
Freezing of Gait Questionnaire.
| NW group | Control group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (1) | After NW program (2) | Follow-up (3) | Baseline (4) | After 3 months (5) | |
| Mean ± SD (range) | 13.8 ± 2.3 (10–19) | 7.1 ± 1.7 (5–11) | 7.9 ± 1.5 (5–11) | 9.3 ± 1.8 (7–12) | 12.0 ± 1.9 (8–15) |
| Median (interquartile range) | 14 (12–14) | 7 (5–8) | 7.5 (7-8.3) | 9 (8–11) | 12 (11–13) |
Factors affecting FOGQ, TUG results, and the PTFMB total score before and after NW training.
| FOGQ | TUG | PTFMB total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SS |
| SS |
| SS |
| |
| Intercept | 124.67 | <0.0001 | 616.44 | <0.0001 | 10.35 | 0.0003 |
| Group | 2.20 | 0.52 | 112.58 | <0.0001 | 12.76 | <0.0001 |
| Disease duration | 45.49 | 0.01 | 7.15 | 0.15 | 1.02 | 0.22 |
| Timepoint | 4.81 | 0.06 | 1.60 | 0.19 | 0.41 | 0.10 |
| Timepoint ∗ group | 391.59 | <0.0001 | 190.47 | <0.0001 | 46.21 | <0.0001 |
| Timepoint ∗ disease duration | 0.24 | 0.66 | 0.03 | 0.86 | 0.20 | 0.24 |
SS: sum of squares for the effect (variance explained by the effect).
Persistence of NW training effects assessed by FOGQ and TUG (p values from the Nemenyi post hoc test).
| Before NW vs after NW | Before NW vs at follow-up | After NW vs follow-up | |
|---|---|---|---|
| FOGQ | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.14 |
| TUG | 0.001 | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| PTFMB total score | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.90 |
Figure 2Timed Up and Go Test results in the NW and control groups at different timepoints.
Timed Up and Go Test.
| NW group | Control group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (1) | After NW program (2) | Follow-up (3) | Baseline (4) | After 3 months (5) | |
| Mean ± SD (range) | 17.2 ± 1.4 (13.9–18.9) | 12.6 ± 1.4 (10.6–17.4) | 12.9 ± 1.5 (10.6–18.2) | 16.6 ± 1.5 (12.4–18.9) | 18.6 ± 1.5 (14.8–20.7) |
| Median (interquartile range) | 17.3 (16.4–18.1) | 12.3 (12.0–12.9) | 12.8 (12.3–13.1) | 16.5 (15.9–17.6) | 19.0 (17.8–19.8) |
Figure 3Results of the Provocative Test for Motor Blocks. (a) Number of patients in each group affected by a particular symptom at different timepoints; significant differences are marked in red. (b) Results of pairwise comparisons between the groups/timepoints; timepoint numbering is explained in legend.