4.2 Article

The effects of arm crank training on aerobic capacity, physical performance, quality of life, and health-related disability in patients with Parkinson's disease

期刊

IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 191, 期 3, 页码 1341-1348

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s11845-021-02772-3

关键词

Aerobic exercise; Arm crank ergometer; Functional capacity; Parkinson's disease; Quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed that an 8-week arm crank ergometer training led to significant improvements in aerobic capacity, physical performance, and Parkinson's disease-related disabilities in patients.
Background Aerobic exercise training contributes to improvement of cardiopulmonary capacity, mobility, neurological function, and quality of life. Aims To investigate the effects of arm crank ergometer training on aerobic capacity, quality of life, and Parkinson's disease (PD)-related disability Methods Seventeen patients with PD were recruited to study. Assessments were performed at baseline and at the end of an 8-week arm crank ergometer (ACE) training program (3 days/week; 1 h per session, 50-70% VO2peak) with patients acting as their own control. Outcome measures included aerobic capacity assessment, 6-min walk test (6MWT), timed up and go test (TUG), Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39), Beck Depression Index (BDI), the Falls Efficacy Scale (FES), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results At the end of the study, an increase of 30.49% in aerobic capacity was observed. Statistically significant improvements were found for the 6MWT (p = 0.001), TUG test (p = 0.001), UPDRS total score (p = 0.002), quality of life assessed with PDQ-39 (p = 0.006), BDI (p = 0.001), and FES scores (p = 0.002) after an 8-week ACE training. No significant effect on MoCA was found (p = 0.264). Conclusion An 8-week ACE training led to significant improvement in aerobic capacity, physical performance, and PD-related disabilities.

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

4.2
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