The Effects of Physical Activity in Parkinson’s Disease: A Review
Abstract
Background: Physical activity (PA) is increasingly advocated as an adjunct intervention for individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, the specific benefits of PA on the wide variety of impairments observed in patients with PD has yet to be clearly identified.
Objective: Highlight health parameters that are most likely to improve as a result of PA interventions in patients with PD.
Methods: We compiled results obtained from studies examining a PA intervention in patients with PD and who provided statistical analyses of their results. 868 outcome measures were extracted from 106 papers published from 1981 to 2015. The results were classified as having a statistically significant positive effect or no effect. Then, outcome measures were grouped into four main categories and further divided into sub-categories.
Results: Our review shows that PA seems most effective in improving Physical capacities and Physical and cognitive functional capacities. On the other hand, PA seems less efficient at improving Clinical symptoms of PD and Psychosocial aspects of life, with only 50% or less of results reporting positive effects. The impact of PA on Cognitive functions and Depression also appears weaker, but few studies have examined these outcomes.
Discussion: Our results indicate that PA interventions have a positive impact on physical capacities and functional capacities. However, the effect of PA on symptoms of the disease and psychosocial aspects of life are moderate and show more variability. This review also highlights the need for more research on the effects of PA on cognitive functions, depression as well as specific symptoms of PD.
INTRODUCTION
Parkinson’s Disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disease affecting approximately 7 to 10 million people around the world, according to the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation [1]. Its prevalence is estimated at 2,802 per 100,000 persons in North America, Europe and Australia [2]. PD’s main cardinal symptoms are tremor, bradykinesia, rigidity and postural instability [3]. Other typical motor symptoms can be observed such as altered gait pattern, freezing of gait and motor coordination deficits [3, 4]. Thus, PD has a direct impact on motor control, and on mobility in general. Furthermore, most patients will also experience non-motor symptoms that include, but are not limited to, cognitive impairment and dementia [5], insomnia [6], depression and anxiety [7], apathy [8], bladder dysfunction [9], pain [10], and fatigue [11]. It is important to note the high variability in disease progression and symptoms between patients; the consequence being that the impact of PD on functional capacities, quality of life, activities of daily living and social participation may differ among individuals. Nonetheless, the progressive nature of the disease will unavoidably worsen the patient’s quality of life.
Physical activity (PA) can be seen as a complement to pharmaceutical treatment to manage the inherent decline associated with the disease. The notion of integrating PA in the therapeutic treatment of PD was introduced during the 1950’s. Back then, PA was already foreseen as a way of minimizing the limitations induced by the disease [12– 14]. Even with the introduction of levodopa, which had a tremendous effect on the treatment of PD, some researchers kept advocating for the integration of exercises as an essential component of therapy in order to maximize the benefits of the medication [15, 16]. From the first experimental studies in the 80’s [17, 18] until today, positive effects of PA on people living with PD have been demonstrated and consensually recognized within the scientific community [19– 22]. According to these reviews, PA seems to improve mobility, gait, balance and muscle strength of people living with PD. Health professionals and PD patients can surely rely on those positive results to justify the importance of PA. Nevertheless, the positive effects of PA on other health parameters such as superior cognitive functions, activities of daily living and psychosocial aspects of life remain unclear. Moreover, the extent of the positive results observed in some areas does not seem to be reflected on clinical symptoms as measured by PD-specific scales. Therefore, there is a need to clarify when PA has a clear positive effect, when PA appears to have less convincing health benefits, and where research is needed. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to present, through an extensive search of the literature covering the last three decades, an overview of the effects of PA on people living with PD.
Our goal is to highlight the aspects of health that, so far, have shown the most improvements as a result of PA interventions. This will also allow us to identify the areas where PA seems to be less effective. Finally, we aim at identifying those areas that have been less studied and that could benefit from further research.
To our knowledge, this is the first paper to present a compilation of the results published in the last thirty-four years. This review will provide a clear and unique picture of the situation with regards to what researchers have brought forward so far in terms of benefits of PA in PD. In the end, we hope that this overview will provide factual basis to promote PA and enhance its practice among people living with PD.
METHODS
Literature search
In order to identify relevant references, we searched PubMed and SCOPUS databases for clinical trials, using mainly a combination of the following keywords: Parkinson’s disease, physical activity, exercise and effects. We also searched for reviews with the same keywords. From those reviews, we identified relevant cited articles from lists of references. For the purpose of this review, physical activity is simply defined as a body movement produced by the action of skeletal muscle that increases energy expenditure [23]. This may include, but is not limited to, fitness exercises, sports, dance, martial arts, walking, physical therapeutic movements and occupational therapy. It is the authors’ view that physical activity can bring benefits as long as it raises the level of energy expenditure, engages the musculoskeletal system, and causes some level of physical exertion. Modality and intensity of exercise were not taken into consideration, only whether the exercise generated significant benefits on the outcome measures studied.
To be included in this review, a study had to meet the following criteria: (a) it targeted subjects diagnosed with idiopathic PD who participated in PA as a mean of intervention; (b) the outcome measures included effects of PA on physical, cognitive, psychological or social parameters in terms of performance, function or symptoms; (c) evaluations were conducted at baseline and post-intervention; (d) the effects of PA were statistically measured; (e) the peer-reviewed article was published in English or French. Were excluded from this review studies that met at least one of these criteria: (a) it was mainly comprised of passive movements (for example electrostimulation and massage therapy); (b) it was founded on the effects of external stimulations such as visual or verbal cueing; (c) the experimental group was comprised of less than four subjects. Accordingly, we included controlled studies, as well as case series, cross over studies and studies comparing different types of interventions with baseline and post intervention evaluations. In the end, 106 studies published from 1981 to early 2015 were selected. The methodological approach chosen for this review differs from other analysis as it includes almost the entire literature on the subject. In order to provide an overview of current knowledge, the high number of papers included in this review allows, in our view, for an equal treatment of all studies.
Identifying and combining outcome measures
For each study, primary and secondary outcome measures were extracted. A total of 868 outcome measures were identified throughout the 106 papers. Since one specific outcome measure (e.g., Time-up-and-go) could have been administered in a different manner between studies, we simply dealt with each outcome measure as being a distinct one.
The results were compiled into a database. All 868 outcome measures were then grouped into four main categories, and further divided into sub-categories. This categorization was inspired by the work of Rikli and Jones [24]. Their model is based on a relationship between physical parameters, functional capacities and activities. For instance, a parameter such as muscular strength can directly affect a capacity such as walking, which in turn can affect the performance of a daily activity such as shopping. This classification is presented and further explained in Table 1.
For each outcome measure, the result reported by the authors was then sorted as having a positive effect or no effect. In order to be considered as having a positive effect, the result for an outcome measure had to show a statistically significant improvement from baseline to post intervention assessment (p < 0.05) within the intervention group. We did not take into consideration the persistence of effects after a follow-up period, since many studies did not include this assessment, and those that did were rarely conducted within the same time frame. This decision was also based on the fact that PA should be a persistent therapy, and stopping it is known to reverse its benefits [25]. For studies based on the comparison of intervention methods, we took into account the effect of each intervention. For this review, we were interested in the effects of PA, this regardless of the type of exercises, volume or intensity. Furthermore, in order to get an overview of the effects of PA on PD, we categorized the potential for improvement in accordance with the proportion of positive results obtained from outcome measures, using a scale as follows:≥70% = Excellent, 60 to 69.9% = Very good, 50 to 59.9% = Good, 40 to 49.9% = Fair, 30 to 39.9% = Poor and <30% = Very poor.
Finally, we compared the effect size of outcome measures that were shown to have a positive effect or no effect for the categories with Fair, Poor and Very Poor effectiveness. Here we used Hedge’s g as a measure of effect size [26] since it provides a better estimate; especially for smaller sample sizes. It is important to note that the data required to compute the effect size was not available for all studies; nor for all outcome measures in each study. Effect sizes were compared using a t-test and a significance threshold at p < 0.05.
RESULTS
The results are presented in Table 2. They include, for parameters of each category and its sub-categories, the number of outcome measures that were identified throughout the reviewed papers and the number of research papers in which they were identified. This is followed by the proportion, in percentage, of outcome measures that resulted in positive effects after a PA intervention, i.e. statistically significant improvements. In the case of Fair, Poor and Very Poor effectiveness, we also compared the effect size of the studies that were effective to those that were not effective if the data allowed it.
Physical capacities
Potential for improvement in this category is good with 57.2% of all reported outcome measures resulting in positive effects.
Lower limbs, trunk and upper limbs strength, endurance or speed
Potential for improvement in Lower limbs strength, endurance or speed is good; as 59.6% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. It is very poor for Trunk strength, endurance or speed; as 14.3% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. However, the data available in the literature only enabled us to assess the effect size in the study yielding positive outcomes; which was 0.935. As for the potential improvement in Upper limbs strength, endurance or speed, it is very good as 66.7% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects.
Flexibility or range of motion
Potential for improvement in Flexibility or range of motion is fair; as 46.7% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. Analysis of the effect size between the studies exhibiting significant improvements in flexibility (0.73±0.3) and those showing no improvement (0.33±0.1) demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Note that the data from two studies did not allow for the calculation of the effect size of interventions with positive (n = 2) and null (n = 5) outcome measures related to flexibility.
Motor control
Potential for improvement in Motor Control is good; as 52.2% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. In addition to the results presented in Table 2, we looked into specific aspects of Motor control; potential for improvement is poor for fine motor skills with 33.3% of positive results out of 12 outcome measures, and very good in gross motor skills with 66.7% of positive results out of 9 outcome measures. Analysis of the effect size between the studies exhibiting significant improvements in fine motor skills (0.87±0.6) and those showing no improvement (0.56±0.5) did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Note that the data from six studies did not allow for the calculation of the effect size of interventions with positive (n = 8) and null (n = 5) outcome measures related to fine motor skills.
Metabolic functions
Potential for improvement in Metabolic functions is good; as 57.1% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. In addition to the results presented in Table 2, we found that potential for improvement in oxygen consumption is very good with 63.3% of positive results out of 11 outcome measures.
Physical and cognitive functional capacities
Potential for improvement in this category is good with 55.3% of all reported outcome measures resulting in positive effects.
Gait, mobility, posture and balance
Potential for improvement in Gait efficiency is good; as 59.8% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. Potential for improvement is also good in Gait velocity and cadence; as 59.8% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. It is also good in Mobility; as 50% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. In addition to the results presented in Table 2, we looked into the results for the two most reported Mobility measures, the 6 Minute Walking test (6MWT) and the Time-up-and-go (TUG). Potential for improvement is excellent using the 6MWT as an assessment tool with 72% of positive results out of 25 outcome measures, and very poor using the TUG as an assessment tool with 35.3% of positive results out of 34 outcome measures. Analysis of the effect size between the studies exhibiting significant improvements in the TUG (0.71±0.4) and those showing no improvement (0.50±0.4) did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Note that the data from ten studies did not allow for the calculation of the effect size of interventions with positive (n = 4) and null (n = 6) TUG outcome. Finally, potential for improvement is very good in Balance, posture and risks of fall; as 61.2% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects.
Cognitive functions
Potential for improvement in Cognitive functions is very poor; as 29% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. Analysis of the effect size between the studies exhibiting significant improvements in cognitive functions (0.69±0.3) and those showing no improvement (0.19±0.1) demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Note that the data from two studies did not allow for the calculation of the effect size of interventions with positive (n = 1) and null (n = 2) outcome measures related to cognitive functions.
Depression
Potential for improvement in Depression is poor; as 38.9% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. Analysis of the effect size between the studies exhibiting significant improvements in depression (0.42±0.1) and those showing no improvement (0.18±0.2) demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Note that the data from eight studies did not allow for the calculation of the effect size of interventions with positive (n = 2) and null (n = 6) outcome measures related to depression.
Activities of daily living
Potential for improvement in Activities of daily living is good; as 59.5% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects.
Level of activity
Potential for improvement in Level of activity is fair; as 41.2% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. Analysis of the effect size between the studies exhibiting significant improvements in the level of activity (0.90±0.4) and those showing no improvement (0.70±0.9) did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Note that the data from four studies did not allow for the calculation of the effect size of interventions with positive (n = 2) and null (n = 4) outcome measures related to the level of activity.
Clinical symptoms of Parkinson’s disease
Potential for improvement in this category is good with 50% of all reported outcome measures resulting in positive effects.
Overall symptoms and disabilities
Potential for improvement in Overall symptoms and disabilities is good; as 51.9% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects.
Specific components of UPDRS
Potential for improvement in Part I – Non-Motor Aspects of experiences of Daily Living (formerly Mentation, behavior and mood) is poor; as 38.5% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. Analysis of the effect size between the studies exhibiting significant improvements in Part I (0.38±0.1) and those showing no improvement (0.32±0.4) did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Note that the data from four studies did not allow for the calculation of the effect size of interventions with positive (n = 2) and null (n = 2) UPDRS Part I outcome. It is good in Part II – Motor Aspects of experiences of Daily Living (formerly Activities of Daily Living); as 50% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. It is excellent in Part III – Motor examination; as 71.1% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. As for the potential for improvement in Part IV – Motor complications (formerly Complication of therapy), it is very poor as 22.2% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. However, the data available in the literature did not enable us to assess the effect size of any study yielding positive outcomes in the UPDRS Part IV. As for the potential improvement in Part V – Clinical fluctuations or Modified Hoehn and Yahr Staging, it is also very poor as none of the outcome measures resulted in positive effects. Additionally, no data was available for the calculation of the effect size. Finally, it is good in Part VI – Other complications or Independence in daily living; as 50% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects.
Specific symptoms of PD
Potential for improvement in Bradykinesia is very poor; as 22.2% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. However, the data available in the literature did not enable us to compare the effect size of the studies yielding positive and null outcomes related to bradykinesia. As for the potential improvement in Freezing of gait, it is poor as 33.3% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. Analysis of the effect size between the studies exhibiting significant improvements in freezing (0.96±0.9) and those showing no improvement (0.08±0.1) did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two groups however, this is likely due to the very limited number of available studies. Note that the data from two studies did not allow for the calculation of the effect size of interventions with null outcome measures related to freezing of gait. As for Gait and posture alterations (specific component of UPDRS Part III), the potential for improvement is excellent in as 75% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. It is good in Rigidity; as 55.6% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. Finally, it is very poor in Tremor; as 20% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. The data available in the literature did not enable us to compare the effect size of the studies yielding positive and null outcome measures related to tremor.
Psychosocial aspects of life
Potential for improvement in this category is fair with 45.3% of all reported outcome measures resulting in positive effects.
Quality of Life (QoL)
Potential for improvement in QoL – total score is good; as 50% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. It is poor in QoL - specific components; as 38.1% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects. Analysis of the effect size between the studies exhibiting significant improvements in QoL (0.65±0.7) and those showing no improvement (0.23±0.1) demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Note that data to compute effect size was available for all studies reporting outcome measures related to QoL.
Health Management
Potential for improvement in Health management is good; as 52.9% of outcome measures resulted in positive effects.
DISCUSSION
In this review, we were able to extract 868 outcome measures from 106 papers published from 1981 to 2015, providing an overview of the effects of PA on people living with PD. After regrouping those outcome measures into four main categories (Physical capacities, Physical and cognitive functional capacities, Clinical symptoms of PD and Psychosocial aspects of life), we were able to look at specific parameters and identify the proportion of positive results for each of them.
Throughout this review, we were able to determine that PA seems the most effective for improving Physical capacities as well as Physical and cognitive functional capacities, with good overall results. Specifically, for Physical capacities, positive results were greater for Lower and upper limbs strength, endurance or speed as well as for Metabolic functions. For Physical and cognitive functional capacities, the sub-categories Activities of daily living as well as Gait, mobility, posture and balance presented greater positive results. We further divided this latter sub-category into specific parameters, showing that effects of PA seemed more effective on Balance, posture and risks of fall, but less on general Mobility. The lower score obtained for the Mobility parameter could be explained by the considerable gap between the results of two tests widely used to assess mobility, the 6MWT that ended with excellent results, being positive in 72% of cases, and the TUG test that ended with poor results, being positive in only 35.3% of cases. The reasons leading to low effects of a PA intervention on TUG performance compared to this other test are unclear and should be further investigated. Nevertheless, we propose that the continuous pattern of movement associated with the 6MWT may help patients perform better, while the discontinuous pattern of the TUG (standing, walking, turning, sitting) is more challenging for the basal ganglia related disease that is PD.
Overall, the parameters classified in the Physical and cognitive functional capacities category were the most widely measured in the reviewed articles. Yet, the number of outcome measures differed greatly between sub-categories. Gait, mobility, posture and balance outcomes were measured 377 times within the reviewed papers while Cognitive functions and Depression outcomes were measured respectively 31 and 18 times. We must mention that the very poor results for Cognitive functions were based on only 31 outcome measures originating from 9 papers. Moreover, these were all published in 2009 or later, except for one that was published in 1999. In our view, this indicates that research on the effects of PA on cognitive functions of PD patients is fairly recent and emerging. Our analysis of the observed effects of PA intervention highlights the fact that some outcome measures related to cognition seem to have a greater sensitivity to PA; whether it be in the test used or in the specific cognitive process being assessed (e.g. cognitive dual task performance). Further studies are certainly required to draw stronger conclusions on potential for improvements in this field. As for Depression, even though the results show poor potential for improvement, the low number of outcome measures, 18, makes it difficult to bring out a trend; it only highlights the need for further investigation.
This review also shows that the effects of PA on Clinical symptoms of PD and Psychosocial aspects of life were not as positive, with respectively good and fair results. It is important to note that the Clinical symptoms of PD category exhibited the highest and lowest effectiveness results in the current study. Indeed, the UDRS Part III – Motor Examination as well as the Gait and posture alterations (specific component of UPDRS Part III) showed excellent potential for improvement after a PA intervention. On the other hand, outcome measures related to symptoms of Bradykinesia, Freezing of gait and Tremor revealed very poor potential for improvement. Nonetheless, we must be cautious in the interpretation of these results. First, some Specific components of UPDRS and some Specific symptoms of PD have not been the object of many post PA intervention assessments. Therefore, results based on a very small pool of outcome measures may be drawn upward or downward and not reflect the reality. Second, some clinical scales may not be sensitive to the changes in symptoms following PA interventions. Clinical ratings of symptoms are performed during a short specific time-window before and after the PA intervention. Symptoms of PD have been shown to be variable over time; from day-to-day and even within one day. It is possible that PA interventions have a positive effect on Clinical symptoms of PD that cannot be captured in those small measurement time-windows but would require other assessment methods such as wearable sensors for long-term monitoring. Third, as we previously mentioned, there is high variability in symptoms between patients. It is reasonable that patients not exhibiting Freezing of gait or having only very mild Tremor not show improvements in those outcome measures after PA interventions. In our view, not only do further studies seem required to draw stronger conclusions on potential for improvements in clinical symptoms of PD, but there is also a need to use sensitive assessment tools to detect subtle changes, especially in specific motor symptoms.
According to our review, Psychosocial aspects of life show, overall, the least potential for improvement as a results of a PA intervention. However, it is interesting to note that Health management was more positively influenced by PA than QoL. Our explanation is that, in the short term, general health might benefit more rapidly and more importantly from a PA intervention, showing better results immediately after its completion. We also hypothesize that QoL would be more positively influenced by a persistent PA program, which would be demonstrated on a long term scale. This is in part supported by our analysis of the observed effects of intervention as those exhibiting the largest effects of PA seem to be in areas where short-term variations can readily be observed by patients (e.g. mobility, ADL, symptoms) whereas those exhibiting the smallest effects may require longer periods of time to change (e.g. social support, communication). Further research would be needed to confirm this hypothesis.
Lastly, this review aspects of PA intervention in PD patients that would benefit from further research. In this review, we have not examined in details the modality of PA delivery since our goal was to bring out aspects of health that, so far, have shown the most potential for improvements regardless of the activity undertaken. We must emphasize that there was a high variety of modalities used across the studies. Also, the duration of the interventions spanned from 2 to 96 weeks, and frequency from once every two weeks to 7 days a week. However, we were able to observe that walking exercises, closely followed by multimodal interventions, seemed to provide the best results, regardless of volume and intensity. However, this observation does not allow us to determine the best-suited activity for PD patients. Moreover, the long term effects of PA on the outcome of PD remain to be determined. Even though it is agreed that type and dosage of PA may influence the results in terms of benefits, it is also agreed that similar results may be obtained through interventions that vary in mode, duration, volume and intensity. In the perspective of improving health and well-being of people living with PD, it would be, in the authors view, relevant to measure the impact of a PA interventions on participants’ lifestyle habits with regards to exercise. Even though the American College of Sports Medecine (ACMS) considers regular exercise as an adjunctive to PD treatment and provides general guidelines for the prescription of PA [27], specific guidelines for exercises remain to be determined, particularly in terms of identifying the optimal type, frequency and intensity of PA. It is our view however, that any PA program that engages the musculo-skeletal and cardiovascular systems, as well as cognitive functions, has the potential to have a positive effect on the lives of patients with PD. Clinicians should therefore set realistic goals with their patients, based on scientific observations that improvement might be possible in all aspects of health, but that some present a greater potential.
LIMITATIONS
One limitation of the present review is the heterogeneity of the studies included. Indeed, there were various types of studies, including controlled and uncontrolled, as well as randomized and non-randomized trials. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there was a very high variability in PA modalities. Taken together, this may have skewed our interpretation of the potential effectiveness of PA on different aspects of PD; in one way or another. Finally, we have to acknowledge that the classification of parameters and outcome measures was based on a priori, informed and deliberate choice by the authors of this review. A different classification may have changed somewhat the results.
CONCLUSION
This overview of the literature highlights the positive effects of PA on Physical capacities and Physical and cognitive functional capacities, more specifically on Gait, mobility, posture and balance. The parameters that were classified in this sub-category have been studied thoroughly in the last 34 years and our findings are in line with recent meta-analyses assessing the effects of PA on PD [20, 21]. This review also brings out the mitigated effects of PA on Clinical symptoms of PD. PA appears to have highly positive effects on gait-related motor symptoms as measured by the UPDRS Part III – Motor examination, but much lower effects on other symptoms. It also highlights the less effective results reported on Psychosocial aspects of life, especially on QoL. Finally, this paper brings out the need for further research on the effects of PA on some health parameters that have not been looked at as extensively in the literature. Effects of PA on Cognitive functions, Depression as well as Specific symptoms of PD could benefit from additional assessments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
All authors declare that (1) CD has grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and JFD has postdoctoral fellowship support from the CIHR and grant support from the Michael J Fox Foundation; (2) JFD and ML are founders of and have shares in NeuroMotrix.
REFERENCES
[1] | Parkinson’s Disease Fondation, http://www.pdf.org/, Accessed 2 May 2016. |
[2] | Pringsheim T , Jette N , Frolkis A & Steeves TD ((2014) ) The prevalence of Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mov Disord, 29: , 1583–1590. |
[3] | Jankovic J ((2008) ) Parkinson’s disease: Clinical features and diagnosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 79: , 368–376. |
[4] | Bartels AL & Leenders KL ((2009) ) Parkinson’s disease: The syndrome, the pathogenesis and pathophysiology. Cortex, 45: , 915–921. |
[5] | Bosboom JLW , Stoffers D & Wolters EC ((2004) ) Cognitive dysfunction and dementia in Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm, 111: , 1303–1315. |
[6] | Gjerstad MD , Wentzel-Larsen T , Aarsland D & Larsen JP ((2007) ) Insomnia in Parkinson’s disease: Frequency and progression over time. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 78: , 476–479. |
[7] | Walsh K & Bennett G ((2001) ) Parkinson’s disease and anxiety. Postgrad Med J, 77: , 89–93. |
[8] | Pluck GC & Brown RG ((2002) ) Apathy in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 73: , 636–642. |
[9] | Sakakibara R , Uchiyama T , Yamanishi T , Shirai K & Hattori T ((2008) ) Bladder and bowel dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm, 115: , 443–460. |
[10] | Ford B ((2010) ) Pain in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord, 25: , S98–S103. |
[11] | Friedman JH , Brown RG , Comella C , Garber CE , Krupp LB , Lou J-S , Marsh L , Nail L , Shulman L & Taylor CB ((2007) ) Fatigue in Parkinson’s disease: A review. MovDisord, 22: , 297–308. |
[12] | Bilowit DS ((1956) ) Establishing physical objectives in the rehabilitation of patients with Parkinson’s disease; gymnasium activities. Phys Ther Rev, 36: , 176–178. |
[13] | Doshay LJ ((1962) ) Method and value of exercise in Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med, 267: , 297–299. |
[14] | Von Werssowetz OF ((1964) ) Parkinsonism, Thomas, Springfield, IL. |
[15] | Davis JC ((1977) ) Team management of Parkinson’s disease. Am J Occup Ther, 31: , 300–308. |
[16] | Minnigh EC ((1971) ) The changing picture of parkinsonism. II. The Northwestern University concept of rehabilitation through group physical therapy. Rehabil Lit, 32: 38–39 passim. |
[17] | Gibberd FB , Page NG , Spencer KM , Kinnear E & Hawksworth JB ((1981) ) Controlled trial of physiotherapy and occupational therapy for Parkinson’s disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed), 282: , 1196. |
[18] | Palmer SS , Mortimer JA , Webster DD , Bistevins R & Dickinson GL ((1986) ) Exercise therapy for Parkinson’s disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 67: , 741–745. |
[19] | Earhart GM & Falvo MJ ((2013) ) Parkinson disease and exercise. Compr Physiol, 3: , 833–848. |
[20] | Goodwin VA , Richards SH , Taylor RS , Taylor AH & Campbell JL ((2008) ) The effectiveness of exercise interventions for people with Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mov Disord, 23: , 631–640. |
[21] | Tomlinson CL , Patel S , Meek C , Clarke CE , Stowe R , Shah L , Sackley CM , Deane KH , Herd CP , Wheatley K & Ives N ((2012) ) Physiotherapy versus placebo or no intervention in Parkinson’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD002817. |
[22] | van der Kolk NM & King LA ((2013) ) Effects of exercise on mobility in people with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord, 28: , 1587–1596. |
[23] | Caspersen CJ , Powell KE & Christenson GM ((1985) ) Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep, 100: , 126–131. |
[24] | Rikli RE & Jones CJ ((1999) ) Development and validation of a functional fitness test for community-residing older adults. J Aging Phys Act, 7: , 129–161. |
[25] | Durstine JL , Painter P , Franklin B , Morgan D , Pitetti K & Roberts S ((2000) ) Physical Activity for the Chronically Ill and Disabled. Sports Med, 30: , 207–219. |
[26] | Hedges LV ((1981) ) Distribution theory for Glass’ estimator of effect size and related estimators. J Educ Stat, 6: , 107–128. |
[27] | American College of Sports Medicine, Pescatello LS & Arena R ((2014) ) ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription, , Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health, Baltimore. |
[28] | Bello O , Sanchez JA , Lopez-Alonso V , Marquez G , Morenilla L , Castro X , Giraldez M , Santos-Garcia D & Fernandez-del-Olmo M ((2013) ) The effects of treadmill or overground walking training program on gait inParkinson’s disease. Gait Posture, 38: , 590–595. |
[29] | Carvalho A , Barbirato D , Araujo N , Martins JV , Cavalcanti JL , Santos TM , Coutinho ES , Laks J & Deslandes AC ((2015) ) Comparison of strength training, aerobic training, and additional physical therapy as supplementary treatments for Parkinson’s disease: Pilot study. Clin Interv Aging, 10: , 183–191. |
[30] | Cheon SM , Chae BK , Sung HR , Lee GC & Kim JW ((2013) ) The efficacy of exercise programs for Parkinson’s disease: Tai chi versus combined exercise. J Clin Neurol, 9: , 237–243. |
[31] | Dibble LE , Hale TF , Marcus RL , Droge J , Gerber JP & LaStayo PC ((2006) ) High-intensity resistance training amplifies muscle hypertrophy and functional gains in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord, 21: , 1444–1452. |
[32] | Dibble LE , Hale TF , Marcus RL , Gerber JP & LaStayo PC ((2009) ) High intensity eccentric resistance training decreases bradykinesia and improves Quality Of Life in persons with Parkinson’s disease: A preliminary study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 15: , 752–757. |
[33] | Hass CJ , Buckley TA , Pitsikoulis C & Barthelemy EJ ((2012) ) Progressive resistance training improves gait initiation in individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Gait Posture, 35: , 669–673. |
[34] | Hirsch MA , Toole T , Maitland CG & Rider RA ((2003) ) The effects of balance training and high-intensity resistance training on persons with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 84: , 1109–1117. |
[35] | Li F , Harmer P , Fitzgerald K , Eckstrom E , Stock R , Galver J , Maddalozzo G & Batya SS ((2012) ) Tai chi and postural stability in patients with Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med, 366: , 511–519. |
[36] | Nakae H & Tsushima H ((2014) ) Effects of home exercise on physical function and activity in home care patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Phys Ther Sci, 26: , 1701–1706. |
[37] | Paul SS , Canning CG , Song J , Fung VS & Sherrington C ((2014) ) Leg muscle power is enhanced by training in people with Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil, 28: , 275–288. |
[38] | Scandalis TA , Bosak A , Berliner JC , Helman LL & Wells MR ((2001) ) Resistance training and gait function in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 80: , 38–43 quiz 44-36. |
[39] | Schilling BK , Pfeiffer RF , Ledoux MS , Karlage RE , Bloomer RJ & Falvo MJ ((2010) ) Effects of moderate-volume, high-load lower-body resistance training on strength and function in persons with Parkinson’s disease: A pilot study. Parkinsons Dis, 2010: , 824734. |
[40] | Shulman LM , Katzel LI , Ivey FM , Sorkin JD , Favors K , Anderson KE , Smith BA , Reich SG , Weiner WJ & Macko RF ((2013) ) Randomized clinical trial of 3 types of physical exercise for patients with Parkinson disease. JAMA Neurol, 70: , 183–190. |
[41] | Szekely BC , Kosanovich NN & Sheppard W ((1982) ) Adjunctive treatment in Parkinson’s disease: Physical therapy and comprehensive group therapy. Rehabil Lit, 43: , 72–76. |
[42] | Toole T , Hirsch MA , Forkink A , Lehman DA & Maitland CG ((2000) ) The effects of a balance and strength training program on equilibrium in Parkinsonism: A preliminary study. Neurorehabilitation, 14: , 165–174. |
[43] | Toole T , Maitland CG , Warren E , Hubmann MF & Panton L ((2005) ) The effects of loading and unloading treadmill walking on balance, gait, fall risk, and daily function in Parkinsonism. Neurorehabilitation, 20: , 307–322. |
[44] | Yang YR , Lee YY , Cheng SJ & Wang RY ((2010) ) Downhill walking training in individuals with Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 89: , 706–714. |
[45] | Bridgewater KJ & Sharpe MH ((1997) ) Trunk muscle training and early Parkinson’s disease. Physiother Theory Pract, 13: , 139–153. |
[46] | Corcos DM , Robichaud JA , David FJ , Leurgans SE , Vaillancourt DE , Poon C , Rafferty MR , Kohrt WM & Comella CL ((2013) ) A two-year randomized controlled trial of progressive resistance exercise for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord, 28: , 1230–1240. |
[47] | Ridgel AL , Vitek JL & Alberts JL ((2009) ) Forced, not voluntary, exercise improves motor function in Parkinson’s disease patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 23: , 600–608. |
[48] | States RA , Spierer DK & Salem Y ((2011) ) Long-term group exercise for people with Parkinson’s disease: A feasibility study. J Neurol Phys Ther, 35: , 122–128. |
[49] | Cugusi L , Solla P , Zedda F , Loi M , Serpe R , Cannas A , Marrosu F & Mercuro G ((2014) ) Effects of an adapted physical activity program on motor and non-motor functions and quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabilitation, 35: , 789–794. |
[50] | Formisano R , Pratesi L , Modarelli FT , Bonifati V & Meco G ((1992) ) Rehabilitation and Parkinson’s disease. Scand J Rehabil Med, 24: , 157–160. |
[51] | Patti F , Reggio A , Nicoletti F , Sellaroli T , Deinite G & Nicoletti F ((1996) ) Effects of rehabilitation therapy on Parkinsonians’ disability and functional independence. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 10: , 223–231. |
[52] | Reuter I , Engelhardt M , Stecker K & Baas H ((1999) ) Therapeutic value of exercise training in Parkinson’s disease. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 31: , 1544. |
[53] | Caglar AT , Gurses HN , Mutluay FK & Kiziltan G ((2005) ) Effects of home exercises on motor performance in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Rehabil, 19: , 870–877. |
[54] | Duncan RP & Earhart GM ((2012) ) Randomized controlled trial of community-based dancing to modify disease progression in Parkinson disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 26: , 132–143. |
[55] | Shen X & Mak MK ((2012) ) Repetitive step training with preparatory signals improves stability limits in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Rehabil Med, 44: , 944–949. |
[56] | Choi HJ , Garber CE , Jun TW , Jin YS , Chung SJ & Kang HJ ((2013) ) Therapeutic effects of tai chi in patients with Parkinson’s disease. ISRN Neurol, 2013: , 548240. |
[57] | Harro CC , Shoemaker MJ , Frey O , Gamble AC , Harring KB , Karl KL , McDonald JD , Murray CJ , VanDyke JM , Tomassi EM & VanHaitsma RJ ((2014) ) The effects of speed-dependent treadmill training and rhythmic auditory-cued overground walking on balance function, fall incidence, and quality of life in individuals with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation, 34: , 541–556. |
[58] | Uc EY , Doerschug KC , Magnotta V , Dawson JD , Thomsen TR , Kline JN , Rizzo M , Newman SR , Mehta S , Grabowski TJ , Bruss J , Blanchette DR , Anderson SW , Voss MW , Kramer AF & Darling WG ((2014) ) Phase I/II randomized trial of aerobic exercise in Parkinson disease in a community setting. Neurology, 83: , 413–425. |
[59] | Bridgewater KJ & Sharpe MH ((1996) ) Aerobic exercise and early Parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 10: , 233–241. |
[60] | Burini D , Farabollini B , Iacucci S , Rimatori C , Riccardi G , Capecci M , Provinciali L & Ceravolo MG ((2006) ) A randomised controlled cross-over trial of aerobic training versus Qigong in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Eura Medicophys, 42: , 231–238. |
[61] | Reuter I , Leone P , Schwed M & Oechsner M ((2006) ) Effect of Nordic walking in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord, 21: , S567. |
[62] | Kurtais Y , Kutlay S , Tur BS , Gok H & Akbostanci C ((2008) ) Does treadmill training improve lower-extremity tasks in Parkinson disease? A randomized controlled trial. Clin J Sport Med, 18: , 289–291. |
[63] | Skidmore FM , Patterson SL , Shulman LM , Sorkin JD & Macko RF ((2008) ) Pilot safety and feasibility study of treadmill aerobic exercise in Parkinson disease with gait impairment. J Rehabil Res Dev, 45: , 117–124. |
[64] | Pelosin E , Faelli E , Lofrano F , Avanzino L , Marinelli L , Bove M , Ruggeri P & Abbruzzese G ((2009) ) Effects of treadmill training on walking economy in Parkinson’s disease: A pilot study. Neurol Sci, 30: , 499–504. |
[65] | Reuter I , Mehnert S , Leone P , Kaps M , Oechsner M & Engelhardt M ((2011) ) Effects of a flexibility and relaxation programme, walking, and nordic walking on Parkinson’s disease. J Aging Res, 2011: , 232473. |
[66] | Schenkman M , Hall DA , Baron AE , Schwartz RS , Mettler P & Kohrt WM ((2012) ) Exercise for people in early- or mid-stage Parkinson disease: A 16-month randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther, 92: , 1395–1410. |
[67] | Canning CG , Allen NE , Dean CM , Goh L & Fung VS ((2012) ) Home-based treadmill training for individuals with Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled pilot trial. Clin Rehabil, 26: , 817–826. |
[68] | Sharma NK , Robbins K , Wagner K & Colgrove YM ((2015) ) A randomized controlled pilot study of the therapeutic effects of yoga in people with Parkinson’s disease. Int J Yoga, 8: , 74–79. |
[69] | Banks MA & Caird F ((1989) ) Physiotherapy benefits patients with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Rehabil, 3: , 11–16. |
[70] | Miyai I , Fujimoto Y , Ueda Y , Yamamoto H , Nozaki S , Saito T & Kang J ((2000) ) Treadmill training with body weight support: Its effect on Parkinson’s disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 81: , 849–852. |
[71] | Miyai I , Fujimoto Y , Yamamoto H , Ueda Y , Saito T , Nozaki S & Kang J ((2002) ) Long-term effect of body weight-supported treadmill training in Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 83: , 1370–1373. |
[72] | Jobges M , Heuschkel G , Pretzel C , Illhardt C , Renner C & Hummelsheim H ((2004) ) Repetitive training of compensatory steps: A therapeutic approach for postural instability in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 75: , 1682–1687. |
[73] | Protas EJ , Mitchell K , Williams A , Qureshy H , Caroline K & Lai EC ((2005) ) Gait and step training to reduce falls in Parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabilitation, 20: , 183–190. |
[74] | Hass CJ , Waddell DE , L. WS , Juncos JL & Gregor RJ ((2006) ) The influence of tai chi training on locomotor ability in Parkinson’s disease.. Annual Meeting of American Society of Biomechanics, http://www.asbweb.org/conferences/2006/pdfs/154.pdf. |
[75] | Herman T , Giladi N , Gruendlinger L & Hausdorff JM ((2007) ) Six weeks of intensive treadmill training improves gait and quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease: A pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 88: , 1154–1158. |
[76] | Canning CG , Ada L & Woodhouse E ((2008) ) Multiple-task walking training in people with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease: A pilot study. Clin Rehabil, 22: , 226–233. |
[77] | Fisher BE , Wu AD , Salem GJ , Song J , Lin CH , Yip J , Cen S , Gordon J , Jakowec M & Petzinger G ((2008) ) The effect of exercise training in improving motor performance and corticomotor excitability in people with early Parkinson’s disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 89: , 1221–1229. |
[78] | Hackney ME & Earhart GM ((2008) ) Tai Chi improves balance and mobility in people with Parkinson disease. Gait Posture, 28: , 456–460. |
[79] | Hackney ME & Earhart GM ((2009) ) Effects of dance on movement control in Parkinson’s disease: A comparison of Argentine tango and American ballroom. J Rehabil Med, 41: , 475–481. |
[80] | Hackney ME & Earhart GM ((2009) ) Short duration, intensive tango dancing for Parkinson disease: An uncontrolled pilot study. Complement Ther Med, 17: , 203–207. |
[81] | de Bruin N , Doan JB , Turnbull G , Suchowersky O , Bonfield S , Hu B & Brown LA ((2010) ) Walking with music is a safe and viable tool for gait training in Parkinson’s disease: The effect of a 13-week feasibility study on single and dual task walking. Parkinsons Dis, 2010: , 483530. |
[82] | Hackney ME & Earhart GM ((2010) ) Effects of dance on gait and balance in Parkinson’s disease: A comparison of partnered and nonpartnered dance movement. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 24: , 384–392. |
[83] | Marchant D , Sylvester JL & Earhart GM ((2010) ) Effects of a short duration, high dose contact improvisation dance workshop on Parkinson disease: A pilot study. Complement Ther Med, 18: , 184–190. |
[84] | Combs SA , Diehl MD , Staples WH , Conn L , Davis K , Lewis N & Schaneman K ((2011) ) Boxing training for patients with Parkinson disease: A case series. Phys Ther, 91: , 132–142. |
[85] | Mirelman A , Maidan I , Herman T , Deutsch JE , Giladi N & Hausdorff JM ((2011) ) Virtual reality for gait training: Can it induce motor learning to enhance complex walking and reduce fall risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 66: , 234–240. |
[86] | Amano S , Nocera JR , Vallabhajosula S , Juncos JL , Gregor RJ , Waddell DE , Wolf SL & Hass CJ ((2013) ) The effect of Tai Chi exercise on gait initiation and gait performance in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 19: , 955–960. |
[87] | Lauhoff P , Murphy N , Doherty C & Horgan NF ((2013) ) A controlled clinical trial investigating the effects of cycle ergometry training on exercise tolerance, balance and quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Disabil Rehabil, 35: , 382–387. |
[88] | Picelli A , Melotti C , Origano F , Neri R , Waldner A & Smania N ((2013) ) Robot-assisted gait training versus equal intensity treadmill training in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 19: , 605–610. |
[89] | Nadeau A , Pourcher E & Corbeil P ((2014) ) Effects of 24wk of treadmill training on gait performance in Parkinson’s disease. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 46: , 645–655. |
[90] | Conradsson D , Lofgren N , Nero H , Hagstromer M , Stahle A , Lokk J & Franzen E ((2015) ) The effects of highly challenging balance training in elderly with Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 29: , 827–836. |
[91] | Cedarbaum JM , Toy L , Silvestri M , Green-Parsons A , Harts A & McDowell FH ((1992) ) Review article: Rehabilitation programs in the management of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 6: , 7–19. |
[92] | Westbrook B & McKibben H ((1989) ) Dance/movement therapy with groups of outpatients with Parkinson’s disease. Am J Dance Ther, 11: , 27–38. |
[93] | Ellis T , de Goede CJ , Feldman RG , Wolters EC , Kwakkel G & Wagenaar RC ((2005) ) Efficacy of a physical therapy program in patients with Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 86: , 626–632. |
[94] | Reuter I , Engelhardt M , Stecker K & Baas H ((1999) ) Therapeutic value of exercise training in Parkinson’s disease. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 31: , 1544–1549. |
[95] | Cakit BD , Saracoglu M , Genc H , Erdem HR & Inan L ((2007) ) The effects of incremental speed-dependent treadmill training on postural instability and fear of falling in Parkinson’s disease. Clin Rehabil, 21: , 698–705. |
[96] | Hackney ME , Kantorovich S , Levin R & Earhart GM ((2007) ) Effects of tango on functional mobility inParkinson’s disease: A preliminary study. J Neurol Phys Ther, 31: , 173–179. |
[97] | Hackney ME , Kantorovich S & Earhart GM ((2007) ) A study on the effects of Argentine Tango as a form of partnered dance for those with Parkinson disease and the healthy elderly. Am J Dance Ther, 29: , 109–127. |
[98] | Ebersbach G , Edler D , Kaufhold O & Wissel J ((2008) ) Whole body vibration versus conventional physiotherapy to improve balance and gait in Parkinson’s disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 89: , 399–403. |
[99] | Li F , Harmer P , Fisher KJ , Xu J , Fitzgerald K & Vongjaturapat N ((2007) ) Tai Chi-based exercise for older adults with Parkinson’s disease: A pilot-program evaluation. J Aging Phys Act, 15: , 139–151. |
[100] | van Eijkeren FJ , Reijmers RS , Kleinveld MJ , Minten A , Bruggen JP & Bloem BR ((2008) ) Nordic walking improves mobility in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord, 23: , 2239–2243. |
[101] | Allen NE , Canning CG , Sherrington C , Lord SR , Latt MD , Close JC , O’Rourke SD , Murray SM & Fung VS ((2010) ) The effects of an exercise program on fall risk factors in people with Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Mov Disord, 25: , 1217–1225. |
[102] | Harro CC , Shoemaker MJ , Frey OJ , Gamble AC , Harring KB , Karl KL , McDonald JD , Murray CJ , Tomassi EM , Van Dyke JM & VanHaistma RJ ((2014) ) The effects of speed-dependent treadmill training and rhythmic auditory-cued overground walking on gait function and fall risk in individuals with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation, 34: , 557–572. |
[103] | Ashburn A , Fazakarley L , Ballinger C , Pickering R , McLellan LD & Fitton C ((2007) ) A randomised controlled trial of a home based exercise programme to reduce the risk of falling among people with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 78: , 678–684. |
[104] | Lun V , Pullan N , Labelle N , Adams C & Suchowersky O ((2005) ) Comparison of the effects of a self-supervised home exercise program with a physiotherapist-supervised exercise program on the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord, 20: , 971–975. |
[105] | Klassen L , Dal Bello-Haas V , Sheppard M & Metcalfe A ((2007) ) Evaluating the benefits of group exercise and group exercise and education programs for individuals with Parkinson’s Disease– World Physical Therapy 2007– Abstracts. Physiotherapy, 93: , (Suppl 1), S1–S802. |
[106] | Purchas M & MacMahon D ((2007) ) The effects of Tai Chi training on general wellbeing and motor performance in patients with Parkinson’s disease: A pilot study. Abstracts of the movement disorder society’s eleventh international congress of Parkinson’s disease and movement disorders. Mov Disord, 22: , S1–S325. |
[107] | Batson G ((2010) ) Feasibility of an intensive trial of modern dance for adults with Parkinson disease. Complement Health Pract Rev, 15: , 65–83. |
[108] | Gobbi LT , Oliveira-Ferreira MD , Caetano MJ , Lirani-Silva E , Barbieri FA , Stella F & Gobbi S ((2009) ) Exercise programs improve mobility and balance in people with Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 15: , (Suppl 3)S49–S52. |
[109] | Goodwin VA , Richards SH , Henley W , Ewings P , Taylor AH & Campbell JL ((2011) ) An exercise intervention to prevent falls in people with Parkinson’s disease: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 82: , 1232–1238. |
[110] | Heiberger L , Maurer C , Amtage F , Mendez-Balbuena I , Schulte-Monting J , Hepp-Reymond MC & Kristeva R ((2011) ) Impact of a weekly dance class on the functional mobility and on the quality of life of individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Front Aging Neurosci, 3: , 14. |
[111] | Winward C , Sackley C , Meek C , Izadi H , Barker K , Wade D & Dawes H ((2012) ) Weekly exercise does not improve fatigue levels in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord, 27: , 143–146. |
[112] | McKee KE & Hackney ME ((2013) ) The effects of adapted tango on spatial cognition and disease severity inParkinson’s disease. J Mot Behav, 45: , 519–529. |
[113] | Frazzitta G , Maestri R , Ghilardi MF , Riboldazzi G , Perini M , Bertotti G , Boveri N , Buttini S , Lombino FL , Uccellini D , Turla M , Pezzoli G & Comi C ((2014) ) Intensive rehabilitation increases BDNF serum levels in parkinsonian patients: A randomized study. Neurorehabil Neural Repai, 28: , 163–168. |
[114] | Gao Q , Leung A , Yang Y , Wei Q , Guan M , Jia C & He C ((2014) ) Effects of Tai Chi on balance and fall prevention in Parkinson’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil, 28: , 748–753. |
[115] | Marjama-Lyons J , Smith L , Mylar B , Nelson J , Holliday G & Seracino D ((2002) ) Tai Chi and reduced rate of falling in Parkinson’s disease: A single blinded pilot study. Mov Disord, 17: , (Suppl 5), S70–S71. |
[116] | Nocera J , Horvat M & Ray CT ((2009) ) Effects of home-based exercise on postural control and sensory organization in individuals with Parkinson disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 15: , 742–745. |
[117] | Ganesan M , Pal PK , Gupta A & Talakad S ((2010) ) Effect of partial weight supported tradmill gait training on balance in patients of of Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 16: , (Suppl 1) S66. |
[118] | Smania N , Corato E , Tinazzi M , Stanzani C , Fiaschi A , Girardi P & Gandolfi M ((2010) ) Effect of balance training on postural instability in patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Neurorehabil Neural Repair, 24: , 826–834. |
[119] | Nocera JR , Amano S , Vallabhajosula S & Hass CJ ((2013) ) Tai chi exercise to improve non-motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. J Yoga Phys Ther, 3: 10.4172/2157-7595.1000137 |
[120] | Cruise KE , Bucks RS , Loftus AM , Newton RU , Pegoraro R & Thomas MG ((2011) ) Exercise and Parkinson’s: Benefits for cognition and quality of life. Acta Neurol Scand, 123: , 13–19. |
[121] | Tanaka K , Quadros AC Jr , Santos RF , Stella F , Gobbi LT & Gobbi S ((2009) ) Benefits of physical exercise on executive functions in older people with Parkinson’s disease. Brain Cogn, 69: , 435–441. |
[122] | Comella CL , Stebbins GT , Brown-Toms N & Goetz CG ((1994) ) Physical therapy and Parkinson’s disease: A controlled clinical trial. Neurology, 44: , 376–378. |
[123] | Schmitz-Hubsch T , Pyfer D , Kielwein K , Fimmers R , Klockgether T & Wullner U ((2006) ) Qigong exercise for the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease: A randomized, controlled pilot study. Mov Disord, 21: , 543–548. |
[124] | Dereli EE & Yaliman A ((2010) ) Comparison of the effects of a physiotherapist-supervised exercise programme and a self-supervised exercise programme on quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Clin Rehabil, 24: , 352–362. |
[125] | Viliani T , Pasquetti P , Magnolfi S , Lunardelli ML , Giorgi C , Serra P & Taiti PG ((1999) ) Effects of physical training on straightening-up processes in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Disabil Rehabil, 21: , 68–73. |
[126] | Keus SH , Bloem BR , van Hilten JJ , Ashburn A & Munneke M ((2007) ) Effectiveness of physiotherapy in Parkinson’s disease: The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial. Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 13: , 115–121. |
[127] | Yousefi B , Tadibi V , Khoei AF & Montazeri A ((2009) ) Exercise therapy, quality of life, and activities of daily living in patients with Parkinson disease: A small scale quasi-randomised trial. Trials, 10: , 67. |
[128] | Goncalves GB , Leite MA , Orsini M & Pereira JS ((2014) ) Effects of using the nintendo wii fit plus platform in the sensorimotor training of gait disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Int, 6: , 5048. |
[129] | Baatile J , Langbein WE , Weaver F , Maloney C & Jost MB ((2000) ) Effect of exercise on perceived quality of life of individuals with Parkinson’s disease. J Rehabil Res Dev, 37: , 529–534. |
[130] | Marusiak J , Zeligowska E , Mencel J , Kisiel-Sajewicz K , Majerczak J , Zoladz JA , Jaskolski A & Jaskolska A ((2015) ) Interval training-induced alleviation of rigidity and hypertonia in patients with Parkinson’s disease is accompanied by increased basal serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor. J Rehabil Med, 47: , 372–375. |
[131] | Rodrigues de Paula F , Teixeira-Salmela LF , Coelho de Morais Faria CD , Rocha de Brito P & Cardoso F ((2006) ) Impact of an exercise program on physical, emotional, and social aspects of quality of life of individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord, 21: , 1073–1077. |
[132] | Hackney ME & Earhart GM ((2009) ) Health-related quality of life and alternative forms of exercise in Parkinson disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord, 15: , 644–648. |
Figures and Tables
Table 1
Classification of outcome measures into categories and sub-categories
| 1) Physical capacities | Physical capacities are comprised of basic physical parameters required to perform functional activities such as walking, sitting down and getting up, etc. |
| (a) Lower limbs, trunk andupper limbs strength,endurance or speed | This sub-category includes measures of strength, endurance or speed for lower limbs, trunk and upper limbs. Results are presented distinctively. |
| (b) Flexibility or rangeof motion | This sub-category includes measures of Flexibility or range of motion for the main body articulations; ankle, knee, hip, trunk and shoulder. |
| (c) Motor control | This sub-category includes measures of fine motor skills, gross motor skills and reaction time. |
| (d) Metabolic functions | This sub-category includes measures of oxygen consumption, respiratory functions, heart rate, blood pressure and body mass index. |
| 2) Physical and cognitive functional capacities | Functional capacities, whether they are physical or cognitive, are comprised of common activities performed by people and abilities required to function independently. These capacities also include parameters that can alter these abilities (e.g. depression). |
| (a) Gait, mobility, postureand balance | This sub-category includes measures related to gait, mobility, posture and balance. Results are presented distinctively. |
| Outcome measures of Gait efficiency are comprised of evaluation of stride or step length, stance, swing, gait initiation, gait cycle, arm and leg movements, etc. Outcome measures of Gait velocity and cadence are comprised of assessments conducted on short distances (usually between 4 and 20 meters) at preferred or maximal speed and in various conditions such as forward, backward, around obstacle, and multiple tasks walking. Outcome measures of Mobility are comprised of the Six and Two Minute Walking tests (2MWT and 6MWT), Time-up-and-go (TUG) tests, step and stair tests as well as walking distances and ambulation performances. Outcome measures of Balance, posture and risks of fall are comprised of static and dynamic balance, postural and risks of fall assessments as well as fall records. | |
| (b) Cognitive functions | This sub-category includes measures of executive functions, memory and sensorimotor tasks as well as cognitive abilities questionnaires (Mini Mental Status Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment). |
| (c) Depression | This sub-category includes measures of depression using clinical scales such as the Beck Depression Inventory and the Geriatric Depression Scale. |
| (d) Activities of daily living(ADL) | This sub-category includes measures based on clinical scales assessing the level of independency such as the Functionnal Independence Measure, the Northwestern University Disability Scale or the Schwab and England ADL scale as well as measures of performance during daily living tasks such as sitting on a chair and getting up, getting dressed, going from supine to sitting position or doing transfers. |
| (e) Level of activities | This sub-category includes measures assessing level of activity with questionnaires such as Physical Activity Scale for Elderly and Phone-FITT, or devices like a pedometer or an accelerometer. |
| 3) Clinical symptoms of Parkinson’s disease | Clinical symptoms of PD are comprised of global and specific symptoms assessed using clinical scales or apparatus. They are based on the patient’s own assessment and objective measures. |
| (a) Overall symptoms anddisabilities | This sub-category includes all measures related to clinical scales when the result was reported as a global score. Results reported by section were not included in this sub-category, but rather in the next one. The most used clinical scale was the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), in its former and more recent version, the Movement Disorder Society – Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). Other clinical scales were also used as an outcome measure, namely the Columbia University Rating Scale (CURS), the Webster Rating Scale for Parkinsonian Disabilities (WRS) and the Self-assessment Parkinson’s Disease Disability. |
| (b) Specific componentsof UPDRS | This sub-category includes all measures related to clinical scales when the results were reported by section. Only UPDRS results were reported in that fashion. We have merged the results coming from both the former UPDRS and the MDS-UPDRS. |
| (c) Specific symptomsof PD | This sub-category includes all measures related to specific symptoms of PD using clinical scales or, in few cases, measurement devices. Included symptoms are B radykinesia, Freezing, Gait and posture alterations (specific component of the UPDRS Part III), Rigidity and Tremor. Results are presented distinctively. |
| 4) Psychosocial aspects of life | Psychosocial aspects of life are comprised of clinical scales and questionnaires that assess the participant’s perception of health and well-being and the impact of the disease on many life dimensions. |
| (a) Quality of life (QoL) | This sub-category includes all measures related to QoL questionnaires such as the 39-Item Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (PDQ-39), the 8-Item Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (PDQ-8), the 5 Dimension European Quality of Life (EQ-5D), the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life scale, the Quality of Life scale from the Oregon Health and Sciences University, a modified Westheimer questionnaire, the Nottingham Health Profile (Health related QoL) and the De Bore’s Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life scale. Results were further subdivided into QoL – total score when the result was reported as a total score and QoL– specific components when they were reported in such manner (e.g. mobility dimension of the PD-39 or energy level of the Nottingham Health Profile). |
| (b) Health management | This sub-category includes all measures related to questionnaires like the Global Assessment of Change, the Stanford self-efficacy for managing chronic disease, the Sickness Impact Profile and the Short Form Health Surveys (commonly called SF-12 and SF-36) as well as fatigue and pain scales. |
Table 2
Proportion of outcome measures resulting in positive effects
| Number of | Positive effect of | Number | References | |
| outcomes | PA intervention | of papers | ||
| measures | ||||
| 1) Physical capacities | 136 | 57.2% | ||
| (a) Lower limbs, trunk and upper limbs strength, endurance orspeed | ||||
| Lower limbs | 047 | 59.6% | 17 | [28– 44] |
| Trunk | 07 | 14.3% | 02 | [38, 45] |
| Upper | 09 | 66.7% | 07 | [18, 29, 30, 37, 46– 48] |
| (b) Flexibility or range of motion | 015 | 46.7% | 06 | [29, 30, 36, 43, 45, 49] |
| (c) Motor control | 023 | 52.2% | 13 | [17, 18, 41, 47, 50– 58] |
| (d) Metabolic functions | 035 | 57.1% | 13 | [40, 49, 58– 68] |
| 2) Physical and cognitive functional capacities | 485 | 55.3% | ||
| (a) Gait, mobility, posture andbalance | ||||
| Gait efficiency | 092 | 59.8% | 39 | [17, 18, 28, 33, 35, 38, 41, 43, 44, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 61, 65, 67, 69– 90] |
| Gait velocity and cadence | 092 | 59.8% | 56 | [28, 29, 32, 35– 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 48, 50, 51, 53– 55, 61– 65, 67, 69– 86, 88– 102] |
| Mobility | 072 | 50.0% | 54 | [17, 28– 32, 35– 37, 39, 40, 46, 48, 49, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62– 64, 67, 70, 75, 78– 80, 82– 85, 87– 89, 91, 95, 96, 98– 114] |
| Balance, posture and risksof fall | 121 | 61.2% | 62 | [17, 28, 29, 34– 39, 41– 44, 47, 49– 51, 53– 58, 62, 65, 66, 68, 72, 73, 75, 78– 80, 82– 85, 87– 90, 95– 99, 101, 103– 105, 107– 110, 112– 119] |
| (b) Cognitive functions | 031 | 29.0% | 09 | [52, 58, 85, 89, 90, 112, 119– 121] |
| (c) Depression | 018 | 38.9% | 18 | [30, 41, 49, 52, 58– 60, 68, 75, 89, 92, 97, 118, 120– 124] |
| (d) Activities of daily living | 042 | 59.5% | 23 | [18, 36, 45, 49– 51, 58– 60, 62, 63, 66, 69, 77, 91, 101, 103, 105, 118, 125– 128] |
| (e) Level of activity | 017 | 41.2% | 10 | [29, 36, 41, 45, 59, 63, 65, 90, 109, 111] |
| 3) Clinical symptoms of PD | 152 | 50.0% | ||
| (a) Overall symptoms anddisabilities (rating scales– totalscore) | 027 | 51.9% | 25 | [30, 36, 45, 50– 52, 59, 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 77, 88, 89, 93, 103, 104, 106, 113, 118, 122, 124, 129] |
| (b) Specific components of UPDRS | ||||
| Part I – Non-Motor Aspects of experiences of Daily Living (formerly Mentation, behavior and mood) | 013 | 38.5% | 13 | [29, 43, 54, 56, 58, 70, 71, 77, 89, 93, 94, 122, 124] |
| Part II – Motor Aspects of experiences of Daily Living (formerly Activities of Daily Living) | 020 | 50.0% | 20 | [28, 29, 43, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 66, 70, 71, 77, 84, 87, 89, 90, 93, 113, 122, 124] |
| Part III – Motor examination | 045 | 71.1% | 45 | [29, 32, 35, 43, 46, 47, 49, 52, 54– 56, 58, 60, 61, 66, 67, 70, 71, 75, 77– 81, 83– 87, 89, 93, 96, 98, 104, 110, 112– 115, 117, 122– 124, 128, 130] |
| Part IV – Motor complications (formerly Complication of therapy) | 09 | 22.2% | 06 | [29, 43, 52, 70, 71, 89] |
| Part V – Clinical fluctuations or Modified Hoehn and Yahr Staging | 02 | 00.0% | 02 | [43, 52] |
| Part VI – Other complications or Independence in daily living | 02 | 50.0% | 02 | [43, 52] |
| (c) Specific symptoms of PD | ||||
| Bradykinesia | 09 | 22.2% | 07 | [17, 18, 32, 41, 50, 54, 58] |
| Freezing | 07 | 14.3% | 07 | [37, 54, 73, 79, 96, 101, 112] |
| Gait and posture alterations(specific component ofUPDRS Part III) | 04 | 75.0% | 03 | [54, 58, 98] |
| Rigidity | 09 | 55.6% | 06 | [17, 18, 50, 54, 58, 130] |
| Tremor | 05 | 20.0% | 05 | [17, 18, 50, 54, 58] |
| 3) Psychosocial aspects of life | 095 | 45.3% | ||
| (a) Quality of life (QoL) | ||||
| QoL– total score | 036 | 50.0% | 34 | [30, 32, 46, 49, 58, 60, 64– 67, 72, 75, 84, 85, 87, 89, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 109– 112, 119, 120, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132] |
| QoL– specific components | 042 | 38.1% | 07 | [58, 72, 87, 89, 124, 131, 132] |
| (b) Health management | 017 | 52.9% | 12 | [49, 52, 58, 65, 67, 68, 88, 93, 105, 111, 112, 115] |
