ArticleJRSM cardiovascular disease
The influence of dual-task activities on spatiotemporal gait parameters in patients with cardiovascular diseases.
Article in JRSM cardiovascular disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of dual-task (DT) on the spatiotemporal gait parameters of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Design: This was an observational, cross-sectional, and comparative study. Participants: The study included 28 males, aged between 51 and 77 years, divided into two groups: Cardiovascular Disease Group (CVDG - N = 14) and Control Group (CG - N = 14). Main outcome measures: Participants performed the simple gait task and dual-task activities (including the cognitive and gait tasks) in a motion analysis system. For statistical analysis, it was conducted a mixed analysis of variance (Mixed ANOVA) and for significant main effects (condition or group) or interactions (group × condition) it was performed post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction. A significance level (alpha) of 0.05 was set. Results: Group comparisons revealed a significant difference solely in step width, where the CVDG showed lower mean values than the CG (p = 0.001). However, DTs similarly affected both groups, resulting in significant reductions in gait speed (p = 0.000), cadence (p = 0.002), step length (p = 0.000), and stride time (p = 0.007). Regarding the interaction effect, the CVDG exhibited a significantly longer step time during the verbal fluency and arithmetic DT conditions when compared to their own performance in the simple gait condition (p = 0.037). Conclusions: No significant differences between groups were found in both single-task and DTs gait across most of the analyzed parameters. Additionally, DT activities similarly affected the gait parameters of both groups. Although cardiovascular diseases are commonly associated with motor and cognitive declines, DTs did not affect participants with cardiovascular impairment differently.
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.