Trial reportActa neurologica Belgica2024
Comparison of the effects of rhythmic vibrotactile stimulations and rhythmic auditory stimulations on Parkinson's disease patients' gait variability: a pilot study.
Trial report in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05790759 (Effect of Rhythmic Haptic Stimulations on Long-Range Autocorrelations in Parkinson's Disease Gait Variability), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Effect of Rhythmic Haptic Stimulations on Long-Range Autocorrelations in Parkinson's Disease Gait Variability : A Comparison With Auditory Stimulations
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation Using Sensory Feedback-Based Wearable Devices on the Gait and Balance in Patients with Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Study on the effects and mechanisms of rhythmic auditory stimulation on freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease: investigation based on functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) technology.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionParkinson's disease patients' gait is characterized by shorter step length, reduced gait velocity and deterioration of temporal organization of stride duration variability (modified Long Range Autocorrelations). The objective of this study was to compare effects of rhythmic auditory stimulations (RAS) and Rhythmic Vibrotactile Stimulations (RVS) on Parkinson's disease patients' gait.
methodsTen Parkinson's disease patients performed three walking conditions lasting 5-7 min each: control condition (CC), RAS condition and RVS condition. Inertial measurement units were used to assess spatiotemporal gait parameters. Stride duration variability was assessed in terms of magnitude using coefficient of variation and in terms of temporal organization (i.e., Long Range Autocorrelations computation) using the evenly spaced averaged Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (α-DFA exponent).
resultsGait velocity was significantly higher during RAS condition than during CC (Cohen's d = 0.52) and similar to RVS condition (Cohen's d = 0.17). Cadence was significantly higher during RAS (Cohen's d = 0.77) and RVS (Cohens' d = 0.56) conditions than during CC. Concerning variability, no difference was found either for mean coefficient of variation or mean α-DFA between conditions. However, a great variability of individual results between the RAS and the RVS conditions is to be noted concerning α-DFA.
conclusionsRAS and RVS improved similarly PD patients' spatiotemporal gait parameters, without modifying stride duration variability in terms of magnitude and temporal organization at group level. Future studies should evaluate the relevant parameters for administering the right cueing type for the right patient.
trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov registration number NCT05790759, date of registration: 16/03/2023, retrospectively registered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37597161What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.