Trial reportMovement disorders clinical practice2025
Three-Week Video- and Home-Based Training Program for People with Ataxia: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGait and balance impairment is a disabling clinical feature in people with degenerative cerebellar ataxia.
objectivesWe performed a rater-blinded, parallel 3-arm randomized controlled trial with delayed-start-design (exploratory proof-of-concept study) to assess whether, compared to control, people with mild/moderate hereditary ataxia benefit from additional video-based training with different frequencies, and how clinical characteristics interact with training success.
methodsDigital gait/balance measures were assessed before and after a three-week video-based training program at home (Train20: 4 × 20min/week, n = 11; Train40: 2 × 40min/week, n = 11; control: standard medical care, n = 10). Group differences at baseline and changes over time were assessed using ANOVA. Linear mixed models were conducted to examine the influence of clinical variables on outcomes over time. Further exploratory analyses were performed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and paired t-tests within each group.
resultsAll variables showed good to excellent test-retest reliability (ICC ≥0.69). No significant interactions between group and measurement time were found for clinical or gait/balance variables (p ≥ 0.338). However, participants with higher initial disease severity, greater impairment in activities of daily living, and better well-being showed significant improvements in feet-together stance (p = 0.04), normal (p = 0.01), and backward gait (p = 0.03). Exploratory analyses showed improvement only in Train40.
conclusionsAlthough the protocol did not lead to general improvements in people with mild/moderate ataxia, irrespective of training frequency, those with higher initial disease severity, higher functional impairment, and better mental well-being showed significant benefits. Greater attention should be given to the impact of well-being to enhance motor training outcomes. Longer, less frequent sessions may offer greater potential for improvement.
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.