Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
PurposeWe developed an innovative telerehabilitation system using a 3D camera with motion sensors that provided real-time feedback. This study is aimed at evaluating its efficacy in improving balance, gait, and mobility, as well as its feasibility in patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD).Materials and methodsParticipants with idiopathic PD self-selected into either a telerehabilitation (tele) group or a hospital-based rehabilitation (hospital) group. The tele group received two initial sessions of hospital-based rehabilitation sessions, followed by 14 telerehabilitation sessions using the innovative system. The hospital group received 16 sessions of hospital-based rehabilitation. Outcome measures included Berg Balance Scale (BBS) score, Chula Parkinson Mobility Scale (Chula PMS) score, gait speed, and step length. The feasibility of the telerehabilitation system was also assessed.ResultsForty-six participants were recruited (tele group: n = 23; hospital group: n = 23). Both groups showed statistically significant improvements in the BBS scores (tele: post-pre = 3.50, p p p = 0.454). Chula PMS score also improved significantly in both groups (tele: post-pre = 3.45, p p p = 0.086). The attendance rate exceeded 90% in both groups.ConclusionsThe motion sensor telerehabilitation significantly improved balance and mobility in PD patients with no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Feasibility was high. However, the BBS improvements did not reach the minimal clinically important difference, indicating the need for further investigation.Trial registrationThai Clinical Trials Registry identifier: TCTR 20220924001.
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.