Table 4.
Systemic reviews assessing various dance-based movement interventions in patients with Parkinson's disease.
| Author (Year; Studies; Participants; Quality) | Primary outcome | Main results |
|---|---|---|
| Zhang Q. et al., (2019; 7 RCTs; 185; 7) | (1) MoCA; (2) FAB; (3) SDS; (4) BDI; (5) AS; | Compared to control: (1) WMD = 2.02, 95%CI:0.65 to 3.38, p = 0.004; (2) WMD = 1.17, 95%CI:0.39 to 1.95, p = 0.003; (3) (4) (5) NS; |
| Sharp and Hewitt (2014; 5 RCTs; 143; 10) | (1) UPDRS−3 motor scores; (2) Gait speed; (3) Balance; (4) PDQ−39; | Compared to no treatment: (1) MD = −10.73, 95%CI = −15.01 to −6.16, p = 0.004; (2) MD = 0.14m/s, 95%CI = 0.02 to 0.26, p = 0.02; (3) MD = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.31 to 1.44, p < 0.001; compared with other exercise: MD = 3.98, 95%CI = 1.52 to 6.44, p = 0.002; (4) Compared with other exercise: MD = −4.00, 95%CI = −7.13 to −0.87, p = 0.01. |
| Shanahan et al. (2015; 12 studies; 359; 6) | (1) UPDRS−3; (2) BBS; (3) TUG; (4) 6–MWT; (5) PDQ−39; (6) PAS; | In this review, dance was found to be more effective than a control intervention for improving balance, motor impairment. Two 1–hour dance classes per week, for at least 10 weeks, can have positive effects. Greater benefit might also be seen with longer duration interventions |
| Lötzke et al. (2015; 12 sudies; 433; 6) | (1) UPDRS−3; (2) The Mini–BESTest; (3) BBS; (4) TUG; (5) 6 MWT; (6) FOG–Q; | Compared to control: (1) 95%CI = −1.04 to −0.21, p < 0.05; (2) 95%CI = 0.60 to 1.31, p < 0.05; (3) 95%CI = 0.01 to 0.90, p < 0.05 (4) 95%CI = −0.72 to −0.2, p < 0.05; (5) (6) NS, p> 0.05 |
| Kalyani et al. (2019; 12 studies; 589; 10) | (1) UPDRS−3; (2) Gait speed; (3) TUG; (4) FOG–Q; (5) 6 MWT; (6) Dual–task TUG; (7) MoCA | Compared to control: (1) SMD = −1.04, 95%CI = −1.69 to −0.39, p < 0.05; (2) NS (SMD = 0.37, 95%CI = −0.13 to 0.86); (3) SMD = −0.54, 95%CI = −0.91 to −0.16, p < 0.05; (4) NS (SMD = −0.38, 95%CI = −0.09 to 0.34); (5) SMD = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.15 to 1.35, p < 0.05; (6) SMD = −0.85, 95%CI = −1.50 to −0.21, p < 0.05; (7) SMD = 0.52, 95%CI= −0.00 to 1.04, p < 0.05; |
| Ismail et al. (2021; 20 RCTs; 723; 6) | (1) MDS–UPDRS−1; (2) MDS–UPDRS−2; (3) MDS–UPDRS−3; (4) MDS–UPDRS−4; (5) The Mini–BEST Test; (6) BBS; (7) FOG–Q; (8) TUG; (10) 6 MWT; (11) BST; | Compared to no treatment: (1) MD= −3.50, 95%CI = −18.68 to 11.67, p < 0.05; (2) MD = −2.09, 95%CI=-7.57 to 3.40, p < 0.05; (3) MD = −6.91, 95%CI = −9.97 to −3.84, p < 0.05 (at 3 months); (4) NS (MD= −0.10, 95%CI= −0.79 to 0.59) (5) MD= 4.47, 95%CI = 2.29 to 6.66, p < 0.05; (6) MD = 8.42, 95%CI = 3.68 to 13.17, p < 0.05 (at 3 months);; (7) MD = −0.39, 95%CI= −2.99 to 2.24, p < 0.05; (8) MD = −1.16, 95%CI = −2.17 to −0.15, p < 0.05; (9) MD = 238.80, 95%CI = 157.99 to 319.61, p < 0.05; (10) NS (MD = 5.30, 95%CI= −2.94 to 13.54); (11) NS (RR = 0.56, 95%CI = 0.11 to 2.90); |
| Emmanouilidis et al. (2021; 39 studies; 1198; 7) | (1) Gait; (2) Balance; (3) Movement; (4) Mobility; (5) Movement disorders; (6) Participation; | This review found that there are positive associations between therapeutic dancing and improvements in gait, balance, movement disorders, and disability. |
| Dos Santos Delabary et al. (2018; 5 RCTs; 159; 8) | (1) UPDRS−3; (2) TUG; (3) 6 MWT; (4) FOG–Q; (5) Velocity of forward and backward walking; (6) PDQ−39; | Compared to control: (1) CI= −13.79 to 2.91, p = 0.003; (3) NS (CI= −6.72 to 79.19, p = 0.10); (4) NS (CI= −4.95 to 0.29, p = 0.08); (5) Forward waling, Cl = 0.33 to 0.20, p = 0.15; Backward Walking, CI = −0.09 to 0.24, p = 0.38; (6) NS (CI = −8.33 to 4.26, p = 0.53); (2) Compared to other exercise: CI = −2.03 to −0.27, p = 0.01; |
| Carapellotti et al. (2020; 16 RCTs; 636; 9) | (1) Motor outcome; (2) Cognitive function; (3) Mental health related outcomes; (4) Quality of life; | The reviewed evidence demonstrated that dance can improve motor impairments, specifically balance and motor symptom severity in individuals with mild to moderate PD, and that more research is needed to determine its effects on non–motor symptoms and quality of life. |
| Berti et al. (2020; 21 studies; 383; 7) | The Template for Intervention Description and Replication guidelines and checklist were used to assess quality and quantity of the content of Argentine tango interventions' description. | This review found that the included RCT interventions were well described, such as details of intervention procedures and doses. In addition, participants in the dance intervention showed strong adaptability and compliance. |
| Hidalgo-Agudo et al. (2020; 11 RCTs; 982; 8) | (1) UPDRS–III; (2) TUG; (3) BBS; (4) ABC; (5) FES; (6) PDQ−39; | Compared to no treatment: (1) NS (p = 0.14); (2) MD = −1.16, 95%CI = −2.30 to −0.03, p = 0.04; (3) MD = 4.05, 95%CI = 1.34 to 6.75, p = 0.003; (4) No relevant research; |
| Barnish and Barran (2020; 56 studies; 1531; 6) | (1) UPDRS−3 motor; (2) TUG; (3) PDQ−39 total score (4) MMSE; (5) MoCA; (6) FAB; | Compared to other exercise: (1) NS (p = 0.96); (2) Compared to usually care: NS (p = 0.33); (3) Compared to usually care: p = 0.0002; (4) (5) (6) No comparable studies for meta–analysis; |
| Tang et al. (2019; 19 studies; 920; 8) | (1) UPDRS–III; (2) Gait velocity; (3) TUG; (4) BBS; (5) PDQ−39; | Tango vs. control: (1) MD = −9.30, 95%CI = −15.11 to −3.48, p < 0.05; (2) MD = 0.13, 95%CI= 0.0748 to 0.1852, p < 0.05; (3) MD = 3.15, 95%CI = −5.60 to −0.70, p < 0.05; (4) MD = 5.00, 95%CI = 3.74 to 6.26, p < 0.05; (5) NS (MD = 2.40, 95%CI = 0.78 to 4.02); |
| Aguiar et al. (2016; 10 studies; 532; 3) | (1) Walking performance; (2) FOG–Q; (3) Mobility; (4) Balance; (5) Quality of life; (6) Disease severity | This review found weight of the evidence suggests that therapeutic dancing can be beneficial for improving motor performance and balance in people with PD. |
| Hasan et al. (2022; 14 RCTs; 372; 7) | (1) MDS–UPDRS−1, (2) MDS–UPDRS−2, (3) MDS–UPDRS−3; (4) TUG; (5) BBS; (6) FOG; (7) 6–MWT; (8) Forward velocity (m/s) and Backward velocity (m/s); (9) Mini–BESTest; (10) BDI; (11) AS; (12) PDQ−39; (13) MoCA; | Compared to control: (1) NS (p = 0.20); (2) NS (p = 0.26); (3) MD = −4.49, 95%CI = −6.78 to −2.21, p = 0.0001 (at 3 months) (4) MD = −1.28, 95%CI = −1.99 to −0.57, p < 0.004 (at 3 months); (5) MD = 5.25, 95%CI = 3.8 to 6.7, p < 0.00001 (at 3 months); (6) NS (at 3 months); (7) NS (at 3 months, p = 0.42) (8) NS (forward velocity: at 3 months); (9) MD= 2.68, 95%CI = 0.82 to 4.54, p = 0.005 (at 3 months); (10) NS (at 3 months, p = 0.33); (11) MD = −3.37, 95%CI = −5.86 to −0.88, p = 0.008 (at 3 months); (12) NS (at 10 weeks, p = 0.68; at 3 months, p = 0.81); (13) MD= 1.1, 95%CI = 0.36 to 1.85, p = 0.004 (at 3 months); |
| Mandelbaum and Lo (2014; 9 RCTs; 295; 4) | (1) Gait; (2) Balance; (3) Upper Extremity Function; (4) Disability Rating; (5) Falls; (6) Quality of life; (7) Drop-out/Exit Survey; (8) Safety and Tolerability; | This review concluded that studies of dance intervention for PD patients should include an active randomized controlled group, a blinded evaluator, power analysis, minimally important difference, and intention-to-treat analysis. |
PD, Parkinson's disease; MoCA, The Montreal Cognitive Assessment; FAB, Frontal Assessment Battery; SDS, Self-rating Depression Scale; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; AS, Apathy Scale; WMD, Weighted Mean Difference; UPDRS-3, Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part-3; HandY, Hoehn-Yahr Score; BBS, Berg Balance Scale; TUG, Timed Up-and-Go; 6MWT,6-minute walking test; PDQ-39, Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Scale; PAS, Physical Activity Scale; Mini-BESTest, Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test; FOG-Q, The Freezing of Gait Questionnaire; FTSST, the Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test; SRT, Sit-and-Reach Test; BST, Back Scratch Test; ABC, Activities-Specific Balance Confidence; FES, Fall-Related Self-Efficacy; FSS, Fatigue Severity Scale; High quality: total score ≥7; moderate quality: total score 4–6; low quality: total score ≤3.