4.7 Article

Tai chi-muscle power training for children with developmental coordination disorder: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-25822-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [17112018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effectiveness of tai chi muscle power training, tai chi alone, muscle power training alone, and no training on improving the limits of stability, motor and leg muscular performance, and reducing falls in children with developmental coordination disorder. The results showed that both tai chi and muscle power training were effective in increasing knee muscle strength and reducing the number of falls.
This study compared the effectiveness of tai chi (TC) muscle power training (MPT), TC alone, MPT alone, and no training for improving the limits of stability (LOS) and motor and leg muscular performance and decreasing falls in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). One hundred and twenty-one children with DCD were randomly assigned to the TC-MPT, TC, MPT, or control group. The three intervention groups received TC-MPT, TC, or MPT three times per week for 3 months. Measurements were taken before and after the intervention period. The primary outcomes were the LOS completion time and dynamic LOS scores. The secondary outcomes included the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition total test score and percentile rank, knee muscle peak force and time to peak force, and the number of falls. None of the interventions affected the LOS test scores. Improvements in the peak forces of the knee extensors and flexors were demonstrated in the TC (p=0.006) and MPT groups (p=0.032), respectively. The number of falls also decreased in these two groups (p<0.001). Thus, clinicians may prescribe TC or MPT for children with DCD to increase their knee muscle strength and reduce their risk of falls.

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