PloS one · 2025
Effect of power training on physical functional performance of patients with Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
de Almeida Samuel Brito, Tavares Sobreira Emmanuelle Silva, de Lucena Alves Charles Phillipe, Lima Danielle Pessoa, de Carvalho Bonfadini Janine, Sobreira-Neto Manoel Alves, Freitas Thiago Holanda, do Nascimento Simony Lira, Braga-Neto Pedro
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Parkinson's disease (PD) is becoming more prevalent, highlighting the urgency of developing treatments to minimize its effects on muscular strength and physical function. Power training (PT) is a potential approach that may improve endurance and muscular power, essential for maintaining functional ability in PD.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of PT versus control or other physical activity (PA) interventions on physical functional performance (PFP) in PD patients.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, PEDro, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing PT to a control group or another PA intervention in PD patients. PFP was the primary outcome. Pooled effect estimates were calculated from baseline to endpoint scores.
RESULTS: From 21,558 results, four studies were included in the meta-analysis due to their moderate to high methodological quality. PT showed no significant effect on PFP outcomes compared to control groups (TUG: ES, -0.281; 95% CI, -0.693 to 0.130; P = 0.180; I2:0%; PWS: ES, 0.748; 95% CI, -0.768 to 2.265; P = 0.333; I2:88%; FWS: ES, 0.420; 95% CI, -0.950 to 1.791; P = 0.548; I2:83%; SLS: ES, 0.161; 95% CI, -0.332 to 0.655; P = 0.521; I2:0%). No differences were found between PT and alternative interventions (TUG: ES, 0.132; 95% CI, -0.394 to 0.657; P = 0.623; I2:0%; BBA: ES, 0.057; 95% CI, -0.430 to 0.544; P = 0.820; I2:0%).
CONCLUSION: PT did not improve PFP compared to control or alternative interventions. More studies are needed to explore PT effects (e.g., higher volume, intensity, and combined types) in PD patients.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of PT versus control or other physical activity (PA) interventions on physical functional performance (PFP) in PD patients.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, PEDro, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing PT to a control group or another PA intervention in PD patients. PFP was the primary outcome. Pooled effect estimates were calculated from baseline to endpoint scores.
RESULTS: From 21,558 results, four studies were included in the meta-analysis due to their moderate to high methodological quality. PT showed no significant effect on PFP outcomes compared to control groups (TUG: ES, -0.281; 95% CI, -0.693 to 0.130; P = 0.180; I2:0%; PWS: ES, 0.748; 95% CI, -0.768 to 2.265; P = 0.333; I2:88%; FWS: ES, 0.420; 95% CI, -0.950 to 1.791; P = 0.548; I2:83%; SLS: ES, 0.161; 95% CI, -0.332 to 0.655; P = 0.521; I2:0%). No differences were found between PT and alternative interventions (TUG: ES, 0.132; 95% CI, -0.394 to 0.657; P = 0.623; I2:0%; BBA: ES, 0.057; 95% CI, -0.430 to 0.544; P = 0.820; I2:0%).
CONCLUSION: PT did not improve PFP compared to control or alternative interventions. More studies are needed to explore PT effects (e.g., higher volume, intensity, and combined types) in PD patients.