4.6 Article

Boxing vs Sensory Exercise for Parkinson's Disease: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
Volume 35, Issue 9, Pages 769-777

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/15459683211023197

Keywords

rehabilitation; boxing; Parkinson's disease SAFEx; Parkinson's disease; high-intensity; sensory; exercise

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that sensory exercise was more effective than boxing in improving motor symptoms for Parkinson's disease patients. Furthermore, the benefits of sensory exercise did not wear off after the intervention was completed.
Background. Exercise is increasingly becoming recognized as an important adjunct to medications in the clinical management of Parkinson's disease (PD). Boxing and sensory exercise have shown immediate benefits, but whether they continue beyond program completion is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the effects of boxing and sensory training on motor symptoms of PD, and whether these benefits remain upon completion of the intervention. Methods. In this 20-week double-blinded randomized controlled trial, 40 participants with idiopathic PD were randomized into 2 treatment groups, (n = 20) boxing or (n = 20) sensory exercise. Participants completed 10 weeks of intervention. Motor symptoms were assessed at (week 0, 10, and 20) using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III). Data were analyzed using SPSS, and repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted. Results. A significant interaction effect between groups and time were observed F(1, 39) = 4.566, P = .036, where the sensory group improved in comparison to the boxing group. Post hoc analysis revealed that in comparison to boxing, the effects of exercise did not wear off at washout (week 20) P < .006. Conclusion. Future rehabilitation research should incorporate similar measures to explore whether effects of exercise wear off post intervention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available