SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A randomised controlled trial on effectiveness and feasibility of sport climbing in Parkinson's disease.

NPJ Parkinsons Dis · 2021-06-10

DOI: 10.1038/s41531-021-00193-8PMID: 34112807

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Physical activity is of prime importance in non-pharmacological Parkinson's disease (PD) treatment. The current study examines the effectiveness and feasibility of sport climbing in PD patients in a single-centre, randomised controlled, semi-blind trial. A total of 48 PD patients without experience in climbing (average age 64 ± 8 years, Hoehn & Yahr stage 2-3) were assigned either to participate in a 12-week sport climbing course (SC) or to attend an unsupervised physical training group (UT). The primary outcome was the improvement of symptoms on the Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III (MDS-UPDRS-III). Sport climbing was associated with a significant reduction of the MDS-UPDRS-III (-12.9 points; 95% CI -15.9 to -9.8), while no significant improvement was to be found in the UT (-3.0 points; 95% CI -6.0 to 0.1). Bradykinesia, rigidity and tremor subscales significantly improved in SC, but not in the unsupervised control group. In terms of feasibility, the study showed a 99% adherence of participants to climbing sessions and a drop-out rate of only 8%. No adverse events occurred. This trial provides class III evidence that sport climbing is highly effective and feasible in mildly to moderately affected PD patients.

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.