SynthesisPloS one2024
Quality assessment and umbrella review of systematic reviews about dance for people with Parkinson's disease.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): To determine (1) the quality of systematic reviews about dance-based intervention in individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) and (2) standard evidence for dance-based intervention efficacy based on the categories of The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) from the World Health Organization's (WHO).
methodsThe data source included MEDLINE, PUBMED, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), CINAHL, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, APA PsycNet (APA PsycINFO), LILACS, SciELO, and AMED. Pairs of independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of eligible studies by using the software Covidence. Criteria included: systematic review designs; individuals with PD; dance-based interventions aimed to change critical PD symptoms matched to IFC domains (body functions, activities, and participation). Independent reviewers extracted information regarding the characteristics of all systematic reviews included and appraised quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Randomized controlled trials and their risk of bias were identified within each review and were used to perform an updated pairwise meta-analysis.
resultsOf the 571 manuscripts screened, 55 reviews met the inclusion criteria. The overall confidence in the results of 38 reviews (69%) was rated as 'critically low,' nine (9%) as 'low,' one (2%) as 'moderate,' while seven of 55 reviews (13%) were rated as 'high'. Dance associated with pharmacological usual care is better than pharmacological usual care alone for essential components of ICF, such as motor symptoms severity (body function), depressive symptoms (body function), balance (body function and activity), and functional mobility (activity), but not for gait distance (activity) and quality of life (participation). Dance is also superior to multimodal exercise to improve balance.
conclusionsClinicians and people with PD can refer to this paper for a summary of high-quality reviews and the overall evidence supporting dance as an adjunct rehabilitation. This umbrella review not only underscores the therapeutic potential of dance but also reinforces the use of arts-based approaches into healthcare practices for people with neurological conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.