4.6 Article

Efficacy of intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease: a randomised controlled study

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2017-316437

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate whether a 4-week multidisciplinary, aerobic, motor-cognitive and intensive rehabilitation treatment (MIRT) improves the quality of life (QoL) of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), in the short-term and long-term period. Methods This is a prospective, parallel-group, single-centre, single-blind, randomised clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02756676). 186 patients with PD, assigned to experimental group, underwent MIRT; conversely, 48 patients, assigned to control group, did not receive rehabilitation. Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 was assessed 2 (T0), 10 (T1) and 18 (T2, only experimental group) weeks after the enrolment. We compared T1 versus T0 scores within subjects and delta scores (T1-T0) between subjects. To investigate the long-term effects, we compared T2 and T0 scores in the experimental group. Results A t T0, no between-group differences in the Global Index Score (GBI) were observed (experimental group: 43.6 +/- 21.4, controls: 41.6 +/- 22.9, P=0.50). At T1, we did not find significant changes in controls (delta score: 1.2 +/- 9.9, P=0.23), and we found an improvement in GBI in the experimental group (delta score: -8.3 +/- 18.0, P<0.0001), significant also between subjects (P<0.0001). Comparing T2 versus T0 in the experimental group, the GBI maintained a significant improvement (delta score: -4.8 +/- 17.5, P<0.0001). Conclusions A rehabilitation treatment such as MIRT could improve QoL in patients with PD in the short-term and long-term period. Even though the single-blind design and the possible role of the placebo effect on the conclusive results must be considered as limitations of this study, the improvement in outcome measure, also maintained after a 3-month follow-up period, suggests the effectiveness of MIRT on the QoL.

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

4.6
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