↓ Skip to main content

Effects of dual-task balance training on postural performance in patients with Multiple Sclerosis: a double-blind, randomized controlled pilot trial

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Rehabilitation, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of dual-task balance training on postural performance in patients with Multiple Sclerosis: a double-blind, randomized controlled pilot trial
Published in
Clinical Rehabilitation, July 2016
DOI 10.1177/0269215516639735
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saeideh Monjezi, Hossein Negahban, Shirin Tajali, Nava Yadollahpour, Nastaran Majdinasab

Abstract

To investigate the effects of dual-task balance training on postural performance in patients with multiple sclerosis as compared with single-task balance training. Double-blind, pretest-posttest, randomized controlled pilot trial. Local Multiple Sclerosis Society. A total of 47 patients were randomly assigned to two equal groups labeled as single-task training and dual-task training groups. All patients received supervised balance training sessions, 3 times per week for 4 weeks. The patients in the single-task group performed balance activities, alone. However, patients in dual-task group practiced balance activities while simultaneously performing cognitive tasks. The 10-Meter Walk Test and Timed Up-and-Go under single-task and dual-task conditions, in addition to Activities-specific Balance Confidence, Berg Balance Scale, and Functional Gait Assessment were assessed pre-, and post intervention and also 6-weeks after the end of intervention. Only 38 patients completed the treatment plan. There was no difference in the amount of improvement seen between the two study groups. In both groups there was a significant effect of time for dual-10 Meter Walk Test (F1, 36=11.33, p=0.002) and dual-Timed Up-and-Go (F1, 36=14.27, p=0.001) but not for their single-tasks. Moreover, there was a significant effect of time for Activities-specific Balance Confidence, Berg Balance Scale, and Functional Gait Assessment (P<0.01). This pilot study did not show more benefits from undertaking dual-task training than single-task training. A power analysis showed 71 patients per group would be needed to determine whether there was a clinically relevant difference for dual-task gait speed between the groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 232 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 44 19%
Student > Master 30 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 10%
Researcher 15 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 44 19%
Unknown 61 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 49 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 18%
Sports and Recreations 15 6%
Psychology 14 6%
Unspecified 13 6%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 74 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,317,110
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rehabilitation
#1,782
of 1,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,948
of 354,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rehabilitation
#421
of 442 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 354,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 442 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.