Effect of power training on physical functional performance of patients with Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
<h4>Introduction</h4>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,...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314058 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | <h4>Introduction</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effect of PT versus control or other physical activity (PA) interventions on physical functional performance (PFP) in PD patients.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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%).<h4>Conclusion</h4>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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1932-6203 |