4.7 Review

Clinical recommendations to guide physical therapy practice for Huntington disease

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 94, 期 5, 页码 217-228

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008887

关键词

-

资金

  1. Huntington Study Group
  2. European Huntington Disease Network
  3. Griffith Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveIn the past decade, an increasing number of studies have examined the efficacy of physical therapy interventions in people with Huntington disease (HD).MethodsWe performed a mixed-methods systematic review using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and included experimental and observational study designs. The search resulted in 23 quantitative studies and 3 qualitative studies from which we extracted data using JBI standardized extraction tools. Results of this review suggested that physical therapy interventions may improve motor impairments and activity limitations in people with HD. Here, we expand on the review findings to provide specific recommendations to guide clinical practice.ResultsWe recommend the following specific physical therapy interventions for people with HD: aerobic exercise (grade A evidence), alone or in combination with resistance training to improve fitness and motor function, and supervised gait training (grade A evidence) to improve spatiotemporal features of gait. In addition, there is weak (grade B) evidence that exercise training improves balance but does not show a reduction in the frequency of falls; inspiratory and expiratory training improves breathing function and capacity; and training of transfers, getting up from the floor, and providing strategies to caregivers for involvement in physical activity in the midstages of HD may improve performance. There is expert consensus for the use of positioning devices, seating adaptations, and caregiver training in late stages of HD.ConclusionsThere is strong evidence to support physical therapy interventions to improve fitness, motor function, and gait in persons with HD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据