SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Efficacy of a Newly Developed Cueing Device for Gait Mobility in Parkinson's Disease.

Parkinsons Dis · 2022-05-18

DOI: 10.1155/2022/7360414PMID: 35634541

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

BackgroundExternal cues are effective in improving gait in people with Parkinson's disease (PD). However, the most effective cueing method has yet to be determined.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the immediate effects of using visual, auditory, or somatosensory cues on their own or in combination during walking compared to no cues in people with PD.MethodsThis was a single blinded, randomly selected, controlled study. Twenty people with PD with an age range of 46-79 years and Hoehn and Yahr scores of 1-3 were recruited. Participants were studied under 4 cueing conditions; no cue, visual, auditory, or somatosensory cues, which were randomly selected individually or in a combination.ResultsA repeated measures ANOVA with pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni correction showed that any single or combination of the cues resulted in an improvement in gait velocity and stride length compared to no cue. Some significant differences were also seen when comparing different combinations of cues, specifically stride length showed significant improvements when additional cues were added to the light cue. The statistically significant difference was set at p ConclusionsWalking using visual, auditory, or somatosensory cues can immediately improve gait mobility in people with PD. Any or a combination of the cues tested could be chosen depending on the ability of the individual to use that cue.

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.