Home › Research › Digital health tools
Motor-Cognitive Dual-Task Training in Persons With Neurologic Disorders: A Systematic Review
Fritz NE, Cheek FM, Nichols-Larsen DS.. Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT, 2015-07-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background and purpose Deficits in motor-cognitive dual tasks (eg, walking while talking) are common in individuals with neurologic conditions. This review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of motor-cognitive dual-task training (DTT) compared with usual care on mobility and cognition in individuals with neurologic disorders. Methods Databases searched were Biosis, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychInfo, EBSCO Psychological & Behavioral, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge. Eligibility criteria were studies of adults with neurologic disorders that included DTT, and outcomes of gait or balance were included. Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. Participants were subjects with brain injury, Parkinson disease (PD), and Alzheimer disease (AD). Intervention protocols included cued walking, cognitive tasks paired with gait, balance, and strength training and virtual reality or gaming. Quality of the included trials was evaluated with a standardized rating scale of clinical relevance. Results Results show that DTT improves single-task gait velocity and stride length in subjects with PD and AD, dual-task gait velocity and stride length in subjects with PD, AD, and brain injury, and may improve balance and cognition in those with PD and AD. The inclusion criteria of the studies reviewed limited the diagnostic groups included. Discussion and conclusions While the range of training protocols and outcome assessments in available studies limited comparison of the results across studies motor-cognitive dual-task deficits in individuals with neurologic disorders appears to be amenable to training. Improvement of dual-task ability in individuals with neurologic disorders holds potential for improving gait, balance, and cognition.Video Abstract available for additional insights from the authors (Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A104).
Key findings
- This review was conducted to determine the effectiveness of motor-cognitive dual-task training (DTT) compared with usual care on mobility and cognition in individuals with neurologic disorders.
- Results Results show that DTT improves single-task gait velocity and stride length in subjects with PD and AD, dual-task gait velocity and stride length in subjects with PD, AD, and brain injury, and may improve balance and cognition in those with PD and AD.
- Discussion and conclusions While the range of training protocols and outcome assessments in available studies limited comparison of the results across studies motor-cognitive dual-task deficits in individuals with neurologic disorders appears to be amenable to training.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| 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 | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26079569) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Fritz, N. E., Cheek, F. M., & Nichols-Larsen, D. S. (2015). Motor-Cognitive Dual-Task Training in Persons With Neurologic Disorders: A Systematic Review. Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT. https://doi.org/10.1097/npt.0000000000000090
Vancouver
Fritz NE, Cheek FM, Nichols-Larsen DS. Motor-Cognitive Dual-Task Training in Persons With Neurologic Disorders: A Systematic Review. Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT. 2015. doi:10.1097/npt.0000000000000090. PMID: 26079569.
BibTeX
@article{fritz2015-26079569,
author = {Fritz, N. E. and Cheek, F. M. and Nichols-Larsen, D. S.},
title = {{Motor-Cognitive Dual-Task Training in Persons With Neurologic Disorders: A Systematic Review}},
journal = {Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1097/npt.0000000000000090},
pmid = {26079569},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/npt.0000000000000090}
}