| Literature DB >> 35174869 |
Jan Kocica, Jan Kolcava1, Michaela Sladeckova, Pavel Stourac, Eva Vlckova, Filip Dosbaba, Jitka Kratochvilova, Josef Bednarik.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Long-term physiotherapy is of considerable benefit to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who have motor dysfunction or gait impairment. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a 12-week intensive circuit class therapy for patients with MS, with a wider focus on fatigue and gait ability.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35174869 PMCID: PMC8963414 DOI: 10.2340/jrm.v54.2027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Rehabil Med ISSN: 1650-1977 Impact factor: 2.912
Demographic and clinical characteristics
| All subjects | ICT | Controls | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total, | 46 | 23 | 23 | 1 |
| Sex (female/male), | 38/8 | 19/4 | 19/4 | 1 |
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 39.65 (8.27) | 41.86 (8.87) | 37.43 (7.14) | 0.31 |
| EDSS score (before ICT), mean (SD) | 2.18 (0.70) | 2.33 (0.74) | 2.04 (0.63) | 0.17 |
| MS duration (years), mean (SD) | 6.95 (4.37) | 5.22 (4.25) | 8.69 (3.83) |
|
Significant values are marked in bold.
ICT: intensive circuit class therapy; EDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale; SD: standard deviation; MS: multiple sclerosis.
Comparison between ICT and control group using the χ2 test.
Comparison between ICT and control group using the parametric Student’s t-test for independent samples.
Fig. 1Study flow diagram. MS: multiple sclerosis.
Training description
| Training protocol | |
|---|---|
| Patients per group, | 5–6 |
| Therapists, | 2 physiotherapists |
| Intensity | 12 weeks, 1 day per week, 60 min |
| Progression | More difficult exercise options, using heavier weights, using balance pads |
| Exercises | Work-stations (A – Easiest, B – Moderate, C – Most difficult) |
| 1. | A) Four-point kneeling position |
| 2. | A) Step on low stepper |
| 3. | A) Shadow-boxing |
| 4. | A) Squat |
| 5. | A) “Three-month-old child” supine position |
| 6. | A) Lunge exercise |
| 7. | A) Triceps push-ups against the wall |
| 8. | A) Bridging |
| 9. | A) Four-point kneeling on a Flow-in pad and upper limb movement; |
Power analysis for the pre-intensive circuit class therapy (pre-ICT) and post-ICT difference of main outcomes
| FSBT | TUG | MFIS | BID | MSWS-12 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated number of samples | 7 | 19 | 22 | 19 | 19 |
| Significance power | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
ICT: intensive circuit class therapy; MFIS: Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; MSWS-12: Twelve-Item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale; FSBT: Four-Stage Balance Test; TUG test: Timed Up and Go test.
Comparison of clinical and questionnaire pre-tests in intensive circuit class therapy (ICT) and control groups
| Median (25th–75th percentile) | ||
|---|---|---|
| EDSS | ||
| ICT | 2.50 (2.00–2.50) | 0.18 |
| Control | 2.00 (1.50–2.50) | |
| FSBT (s) | ||
| ICT | 40.00 (37.00–40.00) | 0.48 |
| Control | 40.00 (39.28–40.00) | |
| TUG test (ms) | ||
| ICT | 848.00 (793.50–995.00) | 0.90 |
| Control | 911.00 (803.50–995.00) | |
| MFIS | ||
| ICT | 28.00 (16.50–38.50) | 0.79 |
| Control | 28.00 (9.50–41.00) | |
| BDI | ||
| ICT | 7.00 (2.50–11.00) | 0.86 |
| Control | 7.00 (2.00–9.50) | |
| MSWS-12 | ||
| ICT | 15.00 (13.50–20.00) | 0.87 |
| Control | 18.00 (12.00–20.00) | |
| SF-36-RLEP (%) | ||
| ICT | 100.00 (67.00–100.00) | 0.87 |
| Control | 100.00 (67.00–100.00) | |
| SF-36-E (%) | ||
| ICT | 50.00 (40.00–65.00) | 0.89 |
| Control | 45.00 (35.00–70.00) | |
| SF-36-EWB (%) | ||
| ICT | 80.00 (64.00–88.00) | 0.56 |
| Control | 72.00 (64.00–88.00) | |
ICT: intensive circuit class therapy; EDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale; FSBT: Four-Stage Balance Test; TUG test: Timed Up and Go test; MFIS: Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; MSWS-12: Twelve-Item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale; SF-36-E: Energy/fatigue; SF-36-RLEP: Role limitations due to emotional problems; SF-36-EWB: Emotional well-being
Student’s t-test for independent samples to compare parameters between particular groups.
Clinical outcomes
| ICT ( | 95% CI | Controls ( | 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Median(25th–75th percentile) | Mean (SD) | Median(25th–75th percentile) | |||
| EDSS | ||||||
| Pre-ICT | 2.33 (0.74) | 2.50 (2.00–2.50) | 2.02–2.63 | 2.04 (0.64) | 2.00 (1.50–2.50) | 1.78–2.30 |
| Post-ICT | 2.30 (0.77) | 2.50 (1.75–2.50) | 1.98–2.62 | 2.07 (0.66) | 2.00 (1.50–2.50) | 1.79–2.34 |
| 0.58 | 0.33 | |||||
| FSBT (s) | ||||||
| Pre-ICT | 37.87 (5.58) | 40.00 (37.00–40.00) | 36.40–39.33 | 38.57 (3.06) | 40.00 (39.28–40.00) | 37.32–39.81 |
| Post-ICT | 39.26 (2.18) | 40.00 (40.00–40.00) | 38.37–40.15 | 38.28 (3.44) | 40.00 (38.13–40.00) | 36.70–39.85 |
| 0.13 | ||||||
| TUG test (ms) | ||||||
| Pre-ICT | 901.91 (185.67) | 848.00 (793.50–995.00) | 826.03–977.79 | 894.39 (148.36) | 911.00 (803.50–995.00) | 833.76–955.03 |
| Post-ICT | 814.83 (163.92) | 849.50 (670.00–905.00) | 739.11–890.56 | 892.96 (149.87) | 901.00 (797.00– 979.50) | 831.71–954.21 |
| 0.86 | ||||||
ICT: intensive circuit class therapy; EDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale; FSBT: Four-Stage Balance Test; TUG test: Timed Up and Go test.
Student’s t-test for dependent samples.
Fig. 2Comparison of differences, arranged by the results of outcomes for individuals and tests. MFIS: Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; ICT: intensive circuit class therapy; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; MSWS-12: Twelve-Item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale; SF36-E: Energy/fatigue; SF36-RLEP: Role limitations due to emotional problems; SF36-EWB: Emotional well-being; EDSS: Expanded Disability Status Scale; FSBT: Four-Stage Balance Test; TUG test: Timed Up and Go test.
*Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples.
Questionnaire outcomes
| ICT ( | 95% CI | Control ( | 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Median (25th–75th percentile) | Mean (SD) | Median (25th–75th percentile) | |||
| MFIS | ||||||
| Pre-ICT | 27.43 (15.76) | 28.00 (16.50–38.50) | 20.99–33.88 | 26.13 (17.65) | 28.00 (9.50–41.00) | 18.92–33.35 |
| Post-ICT | 21.48 (14.34) | 20.00 (11.00–29.50) | 15.62–27.34 | 25.74 (16.62) | 27.00 (9.50–40.50) | 18.95–32.53 |
|
| ||||||
| 0.52 | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| BDI | ||||||
| Pre-ICT | 7.61 (6.15) | 7.00 (2.50–11.00) | 5.10–10.12 | 7.96 (6.90) | 7.00 (2.00–9.50) | 5.14–10.78 |
| Post-ICT | 4.74 (3.39) | 6.00 (1.00–8.00) | 3.35–6.12 | 8.30 (6.81) | 7.00 (3.50–10.50) | 5.52–11.09 |
|
| ||||||
| 0.31 | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| MSWS-12 | ||||||
| Pre-ICT | 17.74 (6.90) | 15.00 (13.50–20.00) | 15.00–20.56 | 17.43 (5.72) | 18.00 (12.00–20.00) | 15.10–19.80 |
| Post-ICT | 16.17 (6.19) | 13.00 (12.00–18.00) | 13.64–18.70 | 17.91 (5.60) | 19.00 (12.00–21.00) | 15.62–20.20 |
|
| ||||||
| 0.06 | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| SF-36 – RLEP (%) | ||||||
| Pre-ICT | 76.87 (29.22) | 100.00 (67.00–100.00) | 64.93–88.81 | 75.35 (32.21) | 100.00 (67.00–100.00) | 62.18–88.51 |
| Post-ICT | 87.04 (19.37) | 100.00 (67.00–100.00) | 79.13–94.96 | 73.87 (33.64) | 100.00 (50.00–100.00) | 60.23–87.50 |
|
| ||||||
| 0.33 | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| SF-36 – E (%) | ||||||
| Pre-ICT | 51.30 (16.67) | 50.00 (40.00–65.00) | 44.49–58.12 | 52.17 (25.31) | 45.00 (35.00–70.00) | 41.83–62.52 |
| Post-ICT | 58.70 (17.00) | 60.00 (55.00–70.00) | 51.75–65.64 | 51.52 (23.42) | 45.00 (35.00–70.00) | 41.95–61.10 |
|
| ||||||
| 0.74 | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| SF-36 – EWB (%) | ||||||
| Pre-ICT | 75.13 (14.37) | 80.00 (64.00–88.00) | 69.26–81.00 | 72.52 (15.55) | 72.00 (64.00–88.00) | 66.17–78.87 |
| Post-ICT | 82.61 (10.06) | 84.00 (76.00–90.00) | 78.50–86.72 | 73.22 (14.29) | 72.00 (66.00–88.00) | 67.38– 79.06 |
|
| ||||||
| 0.58 | ||||||
MFIS: Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; ICT: intensive circuit class therapy; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; MSWS-12: Twelve-Item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale; SF-36-E: Energy/fatigue; SF-36-RLEP: Role limitations due to emotional problems; SF-36-EWB: Emotional well-being.
Student’s t-test for dependent samples.