SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Focal Vibration Training (Equistasi<sup>®</sup>) to Improve Posture Stability. A Retrospective Study in Parkinson's Disease.

Sensors (Basel) · 2019-05-07

DOI: 10.3390/s19092101PMID: 31067663

Open accessresearch-article; Journal Article; Observational StudyOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundFor people with Parkinson's disease (PD), falls are a critical point. Focal vibration training (FVT) may represent a valid tool to improve postural performances and reduce the risk of falls. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of FVT to improve the postural stability in PD patients.MethodsSince October 2015, 55 consecutive PD patients have been selected (T0) for an approach including FVT associated with a rehabilitative protocol (RP); after eight weeks (T1), those patients showing a relevant improvement in the clinical rating scales ((Timed Up and Go (TUG), Tinetti, Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) Part III, Berg Balance scale (BBS) and falls rate scale), continued with the FVT protocol (FVTRP group). The remaining patients continued with only the RP (RP group). In July 2018, we have extrapolated the data of the last clinical visit (T2) to observe any differences in the rate of falls.ResultsThe FVTRP group shows a decrement in the rate of falls from 2.1 to 1.25 (p 0.036) and a stability of the levodopa equivalent daily dosage (LEDD). The RP group shows an increment of LEDD and stability in falls.ConclusionsFVT has been confirmed as a valid tool to enhance the effect of the rehabilitation protocol aimed at postural training.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.