Home › Research › Treatments
Feasibility, Safety, and Preliminary Efficacy of Partnered Rhythmic Rehabilitation in Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease: A 12-Month Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Rafiei Rezvani, F.; Azimi, D.; Nekouei, A. H.; Kim, H.; Sauer, C. C.; Wharton, W.; Qiu, D.; Goldstein et al.. medRxiv (preprint), 2026-09-13
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
BackgroundNon-pharmacological interventions may enhance motor-cognitive integration in prodromal Alzheimers disease (pAD). Partnered Rhythmic Rehabilitation (PRR), an adapted dance-based intervention, is designed to engage the motor, cognitive, and social domains. However, no randomized trial has evaluated its feasibility or efficacy in pAD. This study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of PRR compared to group walking (WALK) in adults with pAD and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). MethodsIn this single-blind, randomized controlled pilot trial (NCT04029623), 68 adults with pAD and aMCI were randomized to PRR or WALK. Prespecified feasibility criteria were attrition [≤]15% and no injurious falls during interventions. Preliminary efficacy was examined on the primary outcome, the Four-Square Step Test (FSST). Secondary cognitive, motor, and psychosocial outcomes were also assessed to inform future definitive trials. Several modifications were made to the original protocol to ensure compliance with safety measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. ResultsAttrition in the PRR group (15.2%) did not significantly exceed the prespecified threshold (P = .848), and 0 injurious falls were reported during the supervised sessions, meeting both feasibility and safety criteria. No significant group-by-time interactions were observed for FSST, but significant group-by-time interactions favoring PRR were identified for Timed Up-and-Go (TUG; P = .021) and jump distance (P = .014). ConclusionPRR was feasible and safe in adults with aMCI consistent with pAD but did not meet the prespecified efficacy endpoint on FSST. Our results showed that TUG and standing board jump distance may serve as potential outcomes in future definitive trials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rafiei Rezvani, F., Azimi, D., Nekouei, A. H., Kim, H., Sauer, C. C., Wharton, W., et al. (2026). Feasibility, Safety, and Preliminary Efficacy of Partnered Rhythmic Rehabilitation in Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease: A 12-Month Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.11.26362767
Vancouver
Rafiei Rezvani F, Azimi D, Nekouei AH, Kim H, Sauer CC, Wharton W, et al. Feasibility, Safety, and Preliminary Efficacy of Partnered Rhythmic Rehabilitation in Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease: A 12-Month Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.09.11.26362767.
BibTeX
@article{rafieirezvani2026-50b7bf22,
author = {Rafiei Rezvani, F. and Azimi, D. and Nekouei, A. H. and Kim, H. and Sauer, C. C. and Wharton, W. and Qiu, D. and Goldstein and others},
title = {{Feasibility, Safety, and Preliminary Efficacy of Partnered Rhythmic Rehabilitation in Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease: A 12-Month Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial}},
journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.11.26362767},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.11.26362767}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- This study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and preliminary efficacy of PRR compared to group walking (WALK) in adults with pAD and amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI).
- Several modifications were made to the original protocol to ensure compliance with safety measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
- ResultsAttrition in the PRR group (15.2%) did not significantly exceed the prespecified threshold (P = .848), and 0 injurious falls were reported during the supervised sessions, meeting both feasibility and safety criteria.
- No significant group-by-time interactions were observed for FSST, but significant group-by-time interactions favoring PRR were identified for Timed Up-and-Go (TUG; P = .021) and jump distance (P = .014).
- Our results showed that TUG and standing board jump distance may serve as potential outcomes in future definitive trials.
Why it matters
In this 12-month pilot randomized trial, a partnered rhythmic rehabilitation dance intervention met feasibility and safety criteria but showed no significant group-by-time interaction for the primary motor outcome compared with group walking. It is a small pilot study of a non-pharmacological intervention, not a treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants68
- Effect size15.2%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 47 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. We have no data on impact for its field and year, so that was left out: it earned 44 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint)) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 68 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Madeleine E. Hackney: h-index 36 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | Baylor College of Medicine: institution h-index 1,607 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 7 institution(s) in 2 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 44 / 94 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “double-blind”
783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.