Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39822211›Full record

ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2024

Overview of Effects of Motor Learning Strategies in Neurologic and Geriatric Populations: A Systematic Mapping Review.

Li-Juan Jie, Melanie Kleynen, Guus Rothuizen, Elmar Kal, Andreas Rothgangel, Susy Braun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Li-Juan JieResearch Centre for Nutrition, Lifestyle and Exercise, School of Physiotherapy, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Melanie KleynenResearch Centre for Nutrition, Lifestyle and Exercise, School of Physiotherapy, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Guus RothuizenResearch Centre for Nutrition, Lifestyle and Exercise, School of Physiotherapy, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Elmar KalCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, London, UK.
Andreas RothgangelResearch Centre for Nutrition, Lifestyle and Exercise, School of Physiotherapy, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Susy BraunResearch Centre for Nutrition, Lifestyle and Exercise, School of Physiotherapy, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health, Heerlen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To provide a broad overview of the current state of research regarding the effects of 7 commonly used motor learning strategies to improve functional tasks within older neurologic and geriatric populations. Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched. Study Selection: A systematic mapping review of randomized controlled trials was conducted regarding the effectiveness of 7 motor learning strategies-errorless learning, analogy learning, observational learning, trial-and-error learning, dual-task learning, discovery learning, and movement imagery-within the geriatric and neurologic population. Data Extraction: Two thousand and ninety-nine articles were identified. After screening, 87 articles were included for further analysis. Two reviewers extracted descriptive data regarding the population, type of motor learning strategy/intervention, frequency and total duration intervention, task trained, movement performance measures, assessment time points, and between-group effects of the included studies. The risk of bias 2 tool was used to assess bias; additionally, papers underwent screening for sample size justification. Data Synthesis: Identified articles regarding the effects of the targeted motor learning strategies started around the year 2000 and mainly emerged in 2010. Eight populations were included, for example, Parkinson's and stroke. Included studies were not equally balanced: analogy learning (n=2), errorless learning and trial-and-error learning (n=5), mental practice (n=19), observational learning (n=11), discovery learning (n=0), and dual-tasking (n=50). Overall studies showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Four studies were deemed sufficiently reliable to interpret effects. Positive trends regarding the effects were observed for dual-tasking, observational learning, and movement imagery. Conclusions: Findings show a skewed distribution of studies across motor learning interventions, especially toward dual-tasking. Methodological shortcomings make it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of motor learning strategies to improve functional studies. Future researchers are strongly advised to follow guidelines that aid in maintaining methodological quality. Moreover, alternative designs fitting the complex practice situation should be considered.

Indexed as

Analogy learningDiscovery learningDual-task learningErrorless learningMapping reviewMotor learningMovement imageryObservational learningrehabilitationSystematic reviewTrial-and-error learning

Identifiers

PMID39822211
PMCPMC11734024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.