| Literature DB >> 36107516 |
So Jung Lee1, Eun Chae Lee2, Muhyun Kim3, Sung-Hwa Ko1, Sungchul Huh1, Woosik Choi1, Yong-Il Shin1,4, Ji Hong Min1,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the effects of dance therapy using telerehabilitation on trunk control and balance training in patients with stroke and compare them with the effects of conventional treatment.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36107516 PMCID: PMC9439746 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030286
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Figure 1.Dance program through real-time desktop videoconferencing using Zoom.
Structure and content of a typical dance class.
| Elements | Example activities |
|---|---|
| (1) Introduction and warm-up | • Focus on active range of motion and stretching of arms and legs while sitting. |
| (2) Chair and/or standing choreography | • Focus on strength and balance. |
| (3) Dance skills | • Working in pairs with either dance volunteers or other participants based on functional balance and independence. |
| (4) Closing | • Ending class with bows |
Figure 2.Study flowchart.
Patient demographics.
| Variable | Experimental group | Control group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients (n (%)) | 7 (50%) | 7 (50%) | |
| Age (years) | 54.71 ± 17.08 | 61.14 ± 14.45 | .462 |
| Sex | 1.000 | ||
| Male (n (%)) | 5 (71.4%) | 5 (71.4%) | |
| Female (n (%)) | 2 (28.6%) | 2 (28.6%) | |
| Height (cm) | 167.00 ± 7.07 | 158.50 ± 15.39 | .209 |
| Weight (kg) | 64.29 ± 12.82 | 59.43 ± 15.26 | .531 |
| Time after stroke (days) | 159 ± 113.02 | 113 ± 267.00 | .290 |
| Stroke subtype | .577 | ||
| Ischemic | 4 (57.1%) | 5 (71.4%) | |
| Hemorrhagic | 3 (42.9%) | 2 (28.6%) | |
| Side of hemiplegia | .127 | ||
| Right | 7 (100%) | 5 (71.4%) | |
| Left | 0 (0%) | 2 (28.6%) |
The values are mean ± SD or number (%).
*P < .05
Figure 3.Non-inferiority plot of the Trunk Impairment Scale score. Difference between the experimental and control groups regarding the change in the Trunk Impairment Scale score. The error bias indicates the 95% confidence intervals; the shaded area indicates the non-inferiority zone.
Comparison of results before and after treatment in the experimental and control groups.
| Experimental group (n = 7) | Control group (n = 7) | Inter-group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TIS | Pre- | 14.29 ± 5.19 | 15.29 ± 3.35 | .19 |
| Post- | 15.86 ± 5.93 | 18.00 ± 2.52 | ||
| Intra-group | .017 | .001 | ||
| K-MBI | Pre- | 68.29 ± 18.38 | 61.00 ± 16.67 | .28 |
| Post- | 75.43 ± 16.22 | 73.86 ± 16.59 | ||
| Intra-group | .004 | .036 | ||
| BBS | Pre- | 38.57 ± 12.91 | 40.29 ± 8.86 | .16 |
| Post- | 41.89 ± 12.88 | 46.71 ± 6.32 | ||
| Intra-group | .099 | .019 | ||
| TUG | Pre- | 43.14 ± 31.92 | 30.43 ± 16.63 | .94 |
| Post- | 35.14 ± 24.73 | 22.86 ± 10.29 | ||
| Intra-group | .033 | .145 | ||
| FAC | Pre- | 3.14 ± 1.06 | 3.29 ± 1.25 | .09 |
| Post- | 4.00 ± 1.41 | 3.57 ± 1.62 | ||
| Intra-group | .078 | .522 | ||
| EQ-5D index score | Pre- | 0.70 ± 0.12 | 0.65 ± 0.12 | .64 |
| Post- | 0.77 ± 0.12 | 0.75 ± 0.07 | ||
| Intra-group | .04 | .03 |
The values are mean ± SD or number (%).
BBS = Berg Balance Scale, EQ-5D = EuroQoL 5 Dimension, FAC = Functional Ambulation Categories, K-MBI = Korean Modified Barthel Index, TIS = Trunk Impairment Scale, TUG = Timed Up and Go.
P < .05