SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Exploring the Potential of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment BIG for Improving Balance and Gait in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

· 2025-12-04

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202512.0516.v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Background: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT) BIG is a well-established exercise program in Parkinson’s Disease (PD), but its effectiveness in other neurological disorders is not well studied. This pilot study examined whether LSVT-BIG similarly improves balance and gait in MS patients compared to PD. Methods: A pilot clinical trial was conducted with two participant groups: MS and PD. Assessments were performed before, during, and after the 4-week LSVT BIG intervention, which followed the established PD protocol of one-hour sessions, four consecutive days per week. Balance and gait were evaluated using the mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (mini-BESTest), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and Functional Gait Assessment (FGA). Single-leg stance time on firm, foam, and inclined surfaces was also measured. Data analysis was carried out using mixed ANOVA in SPSS v24. Results: Twelve participants completed the study (6 PD, 6 MS). Both groups significantly improved in mini-BESTest, FGA scores, and timed tasks (p < 0.001). Comparable between-group results revealed, with no significant differences between MS and PD groups (p > 0.5). Conclusions: Similar improvements across groups suggest that LSVT-BIG may also benefit patients with MS. Larger randomized trials are needed to confirm its suitability for this population.

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.