SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A backward cycling programme for people with Parkinson's disease: a feasibility and preliminary results study.

J Rehabil Med · 2024-06-11

DOI: 10.2340/jrm.v56.17738PMID: 38860715

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

ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of backward cycling for people with Parkinson's disease. Secondary objectives were to assess changes in gait and balance following a 6-week program.DesignA single-group prospective pre-test, post-test study with 1-month follow-up.Subjects/patientsTwenty-six people with Parkinson's disease (mean age: 69 (7.74) years, gender: 83% males, time since diagnosis: 6 (4.44) years).MethodsParticipants pedaled backward on a stationary bicycle for 30 minutes at moderate intensity twice a week for 6 weeks. Feasibility was assessed by acceptability, suitability, and burden. Data collected at pre- and post-intervention with 1-month follow-up included backward stepping response variables, forward/backward gait variables, Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (MBT), and 6 Minute Walk Test.ResultsThere was a high retention rate (95.8%) and adherence rate (100%) with one adverse event and minimal burden. Significant improvements were seen in step count and excursion distance during backward stepping responses, forward and backward gait velocity, forward step length, and the Mini-BESTest.ConclusionBackward cycling was a feasible intervention for people with Parkinson's disease, demonstrating low burden with high retention and adherence rates, and it is a safe exercise with the potential for benefits in gait and balance variables.

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.