4.3 Article

Comparison of the influence of different rehabilitation programmes on clinical, spirometric and spiroergometric parameters in patients with multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 227-234

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1191/135248506ms1248oa

关键词

aerobic training; fatigue; multiple sclerosis; neurorehabilitation; spirometric and spiroergometric parameters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the effect of four different programmes on spiroergometric, spirometric and clinical parameters in multiple sclerosis ( MS) patients. Methods One hundred and twelve MS patients were divided into four groups. The first group underwent neurophysiologically based physiotherapy, the second aerobic training, the third combined therapy ( neurophysiologically based physiotherapy and aerobic training) and the fourth did not change any habits. Seventeen patients did not finish the study. Patients were examined on impairment ( Expanded Disability Status Scale), disability (Barthel Index), handicap ( Environment Status Scale), quality of life ( Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life), fatigue ( Modified Fatigue Impact Scale), depression ( Beck Depression Inventory Score), respiratory function ( spirometric parameters on spirometry) and physical fitness ( spiroergometric parameters on a bicycle ergometer). Results The patients who participated in one of our training programmes showed a significant improvement of the examined parameters in comparison to those who did not change their present habits. Each of the four training programmes had a different impact on the parameters, which means that each of them had a different effect. The neurophysiologically based physiotherapy had the greatest impact on impairment, and the aerobic training on spirometric and spiroergometric parameters. All methods ( the neurophysiologically based physiotherapy, the aerobic training and the combined programme) had an impact on fatigue.

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

4.3
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