کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
1902665 | 1534425 | 2016 | 8 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
• Only few studies address the effects of exercise on elderly’s obstacle negotiation.
• Configurations of training and parameters evaluated present high variability.
• A dual-task paradigm was included in only one study.
• Longer training programs seem to result in better results.
• There is no consensus about the best exercise for improving obstacle negotiation.
BackgroundPhysical exercise improves walking in the elderly but much less is known about its effect on more challenged gait, such as obstacle negotiation. We conducted a systematic review to discuss the effects of regular physical exercise on kinematics and kinetics of obstacle negotiation in the elderly.MethodsA comprehensive literature search revealed 859 citations for review, whereof 206 studies entered the full-text analysis. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 studies were included in this systematic review.FindingsMost of them presented a reasonable quality (average 0.68) but none of them reached the level of a randomized control trial. Interventions were heterogeneous, with training periods lasting from 5 days to 10 months. Studies assessed obstacle negotiation basically considering 3 types of testing paradigm, namely a walkway with either a single obstacle crossing, or with multiple obstacles, or else a treadmill with an obstacle avoidance task under time pressure.InterpretationIn general, longer training programs had better results and very short ones were not effective. A weekly frequency of 2–3 times was the most common among the studies showing positive effects. Regardless of exercises types performed, most of them were effective and so far, there is no consensus about the best exercise for improving obstacle negotiation. A lack of studies on this topic still is evident. Including a record of fall score can further help in deciding which programs are to be preferred.
Journal: Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics - Volume 64, May–June 2016, Pages 138–145