Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundDual-task (DT) performance is impaired in Parkinson's disease (PD), contributing to bradykinesia, postural instability, freezing of gait, and falls. Tactile cueing, including vibrotactile stimulation, has been suggested to improve DT performance in PD.Research questionDoes tactile cueing affect DT performance in PD, specifically measured by dual-task cost (DTC)?MethodsA systematic review was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE up to October 30, 2023, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies were those in English that examined the effects of tactile cueing and/or closed-loop vibrotactile stimulation on DT performance in adults over 18 with idiopathic PD. The primary outcome, DTC, was calculated as the percentage change in performance from DT to single-task using the formula: [(single-task - dual-task)/single-task]* 100. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) of DTC. Statistical significance was set at p ResultsFrom 130 initially identified studies, eight were included in the review. Four studies with 374 participants were included in meta-analyses focusing on walking speed and step length. Three of the four studies indicated that tactile cueing improved DTC for these parameters. However, the SMD for walking speed (-109.69; 95 % CI -454.89 to 235.51, p = 0.39) and step length (-14.21; 95 %CI -53.25 to 24.83, p = 0.33) showed weak evidence of improvement.ConclusionThe meta-analysis provides weak evidence that tactile cueing may enhance walking speed and step length in DT conditions in PD. Rigorous objective studies are still lacking in this field of research.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.