Database searches produced four articles that addressed the effects of LSVT BIG therapy on PD patients. A comparison of the studies and their applicability to the PICO question follows.
The articles by Dashtipour et al. (2015), Ebersbach et al. (2010), and Ebersbach et al. (2015) were RCTs with Level Ib evidence and the article by Farley & Koshland, et al. (2005) was a rater blinded non-randomized study with Level IIIa evidence (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based
Medicine (OCEBM, 2011). The article by Dashtipour et al. (2015) rated 5/10 on the PEDro scale. The reviewed articles were not free from reliability and validity issues due to the small size and lack of power analysis. The article by Ebersbach et al. (2015) demonstrated …show more content…
Ebersbach et al. (2015), investigated the differences between
LSVT BIG therapy and a modified short time 2-week LSVT protocol. This study concluded that the LSVT-BIG therapy provided with standard protocol will be more effective with improved patient-perceived improvement. This was evidenced by the improved clinical global impression of change (CGI-C) score by the subjects during the follow-up assessment. But there were no significant changes in motor assessments during the follow-up assessments in this study. The study by Ebersbach et al. (2010), aimed to compare the effects of LSVT1BIG, Nordic walking, and unassisted home exercises on PD subjects, suggested superior results with patients who underwent LSVT BIG therapy, evidenced by improved UPDRS motor score, TUG, PDQ 3919, and 10 m walking. The study by Farley & Koshland, et al. (2005), summarized that the patients underwent LSVT BIG therapy demonstrated increased wrist velocity for reaching activities and increased gait velocity with greater stride length. Farley & Koshland, et al. (2005), also found …show more content…
Conclusion The reviewed literature answered the PICO question of LSVT be more effective than gait training and general exercise program in improving the gait pattern and functional mobility in a patient with PD. The reviewed articles demonstrated the benefits of LSVT BIG therapy for PD patients with improvements in gait speed, the speed of reaching across the upper and lower limbs as well as improvements of the UPDRS motor score suggesting improved functional mobility and mental wellbeing. The high-intensity LSVT-BIG therapy was more effective to obtain improved motor performance in routine activities without attentiveness towards movement execution resulting in increased patient-perceived benefits. The patient’s goal, to be able to become functionally independent and gain gait stability was addressed by all articles. The
UPDRS score, TUG, 6 MWT, PDQ-39, and forward reaching tests will be used as outcome measures during the intervention. Using the therapist’s clinical experience along with academic knowledge in implementing LSVT BIG therapy program, all the relevant evidence are
The articles by Dashtipour et al. (2015), Ebersbach et al. (2010), and Ebersbach et al. (2015) were RCTs with Level Ib evidence and the article by Farley & Koshland, et al. (2005) was a rater blinded non-randomized study with Level IIIa evidence (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based
Medicine (OCEBM, 2011). The article by Dashtipour et al. (2015) rated 5/10 on the PEDro scale. The reviewed articles were not free from reliability and validity issues due to the small size and lack of power analysis. The article by Ebersbach et al. (2015) demonstrated …show more content…
Ebersbach et al. (2015), investigated the differences between
LSVT BIG therapy and a modified short time 2-week LSVT protocol. This study concluded that the LSVT-BIG therapy provided with standard protocol will be more effective with improved patient-perceived improvement. This was evidenced by the improved clinical global impression of change (CGI-C) score by the subjects during the follow-up assessment. But there were no significant changes in motor assessments during the follow-up assessments in this study. The study by Ebersbach et al. (2010), aimed to compare the effects of LSVT1BIG, Nordic walking, and unassisted home exercises on PD subjects, suggested superior results with patients who underwent LSVT BIG therapy, evidenced by improved UPDRS motor score, TUG, PDQ 3919, and 10 m walking. The study by Farley & Koshland, et al. (2005), summarized that the patients underwent LSVT BIG therapy demonstrated increased wrist velocity for reaching activities and increased gait velocity with greater stride length. Farley & Koshland, et al. (2005), also found …show more content…
Conclusion The reviewed literature answered the PICO question of LSVT be more effective than gait training and general exercise program in improving the gait pattern and functional mobility in a patient with PD. The reviewed articles demonstrated the benefits of LSVT BIG therapy for PD patients with improvements in gait speed, the speed of reaching across the upper and lower limbs as well as improvements of the UPDRS motor score suggesting improved functional mobility and mental wellbeing. The high-intensity LSVT-BIG therapy was more effective to obtain improved motor performance in routine activities without attentiveness towards movement execution resulting in increased patient-perceived benefits. The patient’s goal, to be able to become functionally independent and gain gait stability was addressed by all articles. The
UPDRS score, TUG, 6 MWT, PDQ-39, and forward reaching tests will be used as outcome measures during the intervention. Using the therapist’s clinical experience along with academic knowledge in implementing LSVT BIG therapy program, all the relevant evidence are