Abstract
Background:
The application of wearable sensor technology in an exercise intervention provides a new method for the standardization and accuracy of intervention. Considering that the deterioration of musculoskeletal conditions is of serious concern in patients with neurodegenerative diseases, it is worthwhile to clarify the effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on musculoskeletal disorders in such patients compared with traditional exercise.
Methods:
Five health science-related databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Ebsco Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, were systematically searched. The protocol number of the study is PROSPERO CRD42022319763. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were published up to March 2022 and written in English were included. Balance was the primary outcome measure, comprising questionnaires on postural stability and computerized dynamic posturography. The secondary outcome measures are motor symptoms, mobility ability, functional gait abilities, fall-associated self-efficacy, and adverse events. Stata version 16.0 was used for statistical analysis, and the weighted mean difference (WMD) was selected as the effect size with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results:
Fifteen RCTs involving 488 participants with mean ages ranging from 58.6 to 81.6 years were included in this review, with 14 of them being pooled in a quantitative meta-analysis. Only five included studies showed a low risk of bias. The Berg balance scale (BBS) was used in nine studies, and the pooled data showed a significant improvement in the wearable sensor-based exercise group compared with the traditional exercise group after 3–12-week intervention (WMD = 1.43; 95% CI, 0.50 to 2.36, P = 0.003). A significant change in visual score was found both post-assessment and at 1-month follow-up assessment (WMD = 4.38; 95% CI, 1.69 to 7.07, P = 0.001; I2 = 0.0%). However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in the secondary outcome measures (all p > 0.05). No major adverse events were reported.
Conclusion:
The wearable sensor-based exercise had advantages in improving balance in patients with neurodegenerative diseases, while there was a lack of evidence in motor symptoms, mobility, and functional gait ability enhancement. Future studies are recommended to construct a comprehensive rehabilitation treatment system for the improvement in both postural control and quality of life.
Systematic Review Registration:
http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022319763.
Introduction
Neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, motor neuron diseases, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) are caused by the progressive degeneration of neurons and/or their myelin sheaths and mainly characterized by the deposition of proteins showing altered physicochemical properties in the brain and in peripheral organs (Dugger and Dickson, 2017; Kovacs, 2017), such as degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons in substantia nigra, or tangle of intracellular neurofibrillary. Symptoms of neurodegenerative diseases vary depending on the mechanism of degeneration and the corresponding brain region (Erkkinen et al., 2018). As degeneration increases, patients may develop different types of dysfunctions, including cognitive or motor impairments (Pender et al., 2020; Aarsland et al., 2021). Moreover, neurodegenerative diseases are among the most serious health problems affecting the life expectancy of millions of people worldwide (Kingwell, 2019; Dommershuijsen et al., 2020), with an estimated incidence rate from approximately 17 per 100,000 to 11.08 per 1000 person-years in Parkinson’s disease (PD) (Hirsch et al., 2016) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) (Niu et al., 2017), respectively.
Previous study suggested that the main motor symptom, which was associated with neurodegeneration, increases gradually as the disease progresses (Ray and Agarwal, 2020), is the postural control abnormalities because the degeneration of the nervous system influences the integration of sensory information, the formation of motor patterns (which can be understood as the central nervous system generating the imagination of the movement), and the disorder of muscle control (Ryan et al., 2014). A growing body of research demonstrated that patients with neurodegenerative diseases may present with decreased balance, abnormal gait (Morel et al., 2020), a higher tendency to fall (Schell et al., 2019), and frailty (Swanson and Robinson, 2020; Waite et al., 2021), which brings about higher morbidity and mortality and also turns into significant healthcare concerns.
Cass et al. proposed that the ability to control postural balance is essential to perform most of the daily life activities, allowing people to maintain an active lifestyle, and avoiding falls (Cass, 2017). Motor intervention is a critical pathway for improving both balance and postural control in people with neurodegenerative diseases. The traditional exercise protocol consists of repeated balance training and gait relearning under the guidance of the therapist (Ni et al., 2018; Meng et al., 2020; Okada et al., 2021), while wearable systems are a promising solution to provide quantitative and meaningful clinical information about progress in a rehabilitation pathway, with personalized biofeedback or tele-therapy that can be administered in the comfort of settings for those with progressive neurological conditions (Porciuncula et al., 2018). Well-documented evidence suggested that the involvement of wearable sensor-based exercise, which means a cueing rehabilitation based on devices providing visual, auditory, or vibrotactile biofeedback (Carpinella et al., 2017), can provide patients with instant and sensitive biofeedback about the user’s performance and build an interactive environment for supporting motor learning (Argent et al., 2019). The sensors can accurately measure body motion and capture the tendency of incorrect action patterns to promote the learning of postural control (Carpinella et al., 2017; Jakob et al., 2021; Meng et al., 2021). Studies have supported that a wearable sensor-based intervention model is well suited to impact a movement disorder in people with mild cognitive impairment (Schwenk et al., 2016), as they can serve as a “sixth sense,” promote the central organization of multiple sensory inputs through external feedback (Gomez-Pinilla and Hillman, 2013; Gera et al., 2018), guide the formation of movement patterns in the brain (internal feedback) to control posture (Donath et al., 2016; Shih et al., 2016; Conradsson et al., 2017; Silva et al., 2017), and give a motivating effect due to game-based features (Horak et al., 2015).
Overview articles have discussed the potential of wearable sensor-based exercise for improving clinically relevant motor performances, such as postural stability or gait, which are important for safe ambulation and mobility-related quality of life (Horak et al., 2015), and a previous meta-analysis, including eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs), provided evidence for a positive effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on static steady-state balance of healthy and various patient populations in studies with usual care controls and studies with conventional balance training controls (Gordt et al., 2018). However, to our knowledge, it remains unclear whether the wearable sensor-based exercise can effectively improve musculoskeletal disorders in individuals with neurodegenerative diseases. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to clarify the effectiveness of wearable sensor-based exercise for musculoskeletal concerns in patients with neurodegenerative diseases.
Methods
The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to structure our review. PROSPERO was used to enroll the protocol for this meta-analysis (No. CRD42022319763).
Search Strategy
Two reviewers (Xin Li and Zhengquan Chen) independently conducted an extensive search in five health science databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Ebsco Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, up to March 2022. The following search terms and their synonyms: “neurodegenerative diseases,” “Parkinson’s disease,” “Alzheimer’s disease,” “motor neuron diseases,” “amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,” “biofeedback,” “sensor,” “exercise,” and “postural control” (Table 1), were used. The search strategies are given in Supplementary Appendix 1.
TABLE 1
| Search strategy |
| #1 Neurodegenerati* OR Parkinson* OR PD OR Alzheimer* OR “Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis” OR ALS OR “Motor Neuron Diseases” |
| #2 Biofeedback OR Sensor* OR Inertial OR IMU OR Acceleromet* OR Actigraph* OR Gyroscope* OR Magnetometer* OR “Virtual Reality” OR Exergam* |
| #3 Exercise* OR Physical Activity OR Sport* OR Training |
| #4 Balance OR Postur* OR “Motor Control” OR Gait OR Propriocepti* |
| #5 random* OR allocation OR placebo OR “single-blind” OR “double-blind” OR RCT |
| #6 #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4 AND #5 |
Terms used in the search strategy.
* Is used as a wildcard for truncated word retrieval.
We also searched the reference lists of the included studies and reviews of similar topics to identify additional eligible studies. This systematic review only included RCTs written in English. If there was a disagreement, the full text of the article was checked and discussed, if necessary, with third-party adjudication (Meiwen Zhu).
Eligibility Criteria
The following criteria that followed PICOS strategy were used to determine whether studies were eligible: (1) population: patients who were diagnosed with neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, motor neuron diseases, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; (2) intervention: wearable sensor-based exercise, including self-developed sensors or commercial sensors, which can provide visual, auditory, or vibrotactile biofeedback; (3) comparisons: therapeutic exercise without the use of sensors; (4) outcome measures: primary outcome being balance and secondary outcomes being motor symptoms, mobility ability, functional gait abilities, and fall-associated self-efficacy; and (5) study design: RCTs.
Study Selection
Two reviewers (Yiming Yue and Shuangyu Gu) independently screened the studies using the eligibility criteria. The titles and abstracts were initially screened, and then, the full texts of the remaining articles were extensively reviewed. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and rechecking the articles.
Outcome Measurements and Data Extraction
Considering the progression of neurodegenerative diseases, changes in the outcomes were compared between the wearable sensor-based exercise and controls. A change in balance was the primary outcome for extraction. Balance was assessed by evaluated by the Berg balance scale (BBS) or sensory organization test (SOT). A change in motor symptoms evaluated by the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-III (UPDRS-III), mobility ability evaluated by the timed “Up and Go” test (TUG), 10-meter walking test (10MWT), and 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39), functional gait abilities evaluated by the dynamic gait index (DGI), and fall-associated self-efficacy evaluated by the activities-specific balance confidence (ABC) scale were also extracted as the secondary outcomes.
Two reviewers (Qing Du and Haibin Guo) were paired up to retrieve the information and data from the included RCTs. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer (Xin Li). The following data were extracted: first author, published year, country, the number, gender, and age of participants; the duration, severity, and medication of the neurodegenerative diseases; sensor type; outcome measures; time points; and dropout rate. The details of the intervention methods (frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise) in both the control group and sensor-based intervention group were also extracted. Adverse events were also collected to determine the safety of the wearable sensor-based exercise protocols.
Mean, standard deviation (SD), and the sample size were extracted for the outcome measures in each group (i.e., active and sham) for the pooled analysis. Published protocols were referenced and the corresponding authors were contacted for additional data when data were not directly available from the article.
Risk of Bias Assessment
The two reviewers (Xuan Zhou and Jing Tao) independently used the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2.0) for RCTs to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. RoB 2.0 provides five domains and gives the overall risk of bias evaluation at the end. The five domains in RoB 2.0 are (1) the randomization process, (2) deviations from the intended interventions, (3) missing outcome data, (4) measurement of the outcome, and (5) selection of the reported result. For missing outcome data in individual studies, we stipulated a low risk of bias for loss to follow-up of less than 10% and a difference of less than 5% in missing data between intervention and control groups. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of funnel plots for each outcome in which 10 or more eligible studies were identified.
Meta-Analysis and Subgroup Analyses
We used Stata version 16.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, United States) to conduct this meta-analysis. The weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95 percent confidence intervals (Cls) was calculated to represent the effect size. The I2 test was used to estimate the heterogeneity. A random-effects model was adopted when there was a significant heterogeneity (I2 > 50%); otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. Egger’s test was used to identify the publication bias of the main outcome measures. The p-value at the 0.05 level was considered statistically significant. Moreover, a sub-group analysis was performed on outcome measures of different follow-up time points according to the included studies.
Quality of Evidence
The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was conducted in this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the quality of the evidence provided by RCTs. Detailed GRADE guidance was used to assess the overall risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias and to summarize the results. We categorized each piece of evidence as high, medium, low, or very low quality (Atkins et al., 2004).
Results
Identification of Studies
We found 1726 relevant articles from five health science databases. After removing duplicates, 1314 article titles and abstracts were screened for relevance. Eventually, 1299 articles were excluded due to not meeting the inclusion criteria or satisfying the exclusion criteria, and 15 articles were included. All these studies were randomized clinical trials. The flowchart of the study selection process is shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
Participant and Study Characteristics
The demographic variables, type of sensors, time point, outcome measures, and dropout rate are given in Table 2. The frequency, intensity, time, and type of the exercise protocols in the intervention group and control group are presented in Table 3. A total of 15 articles involved 488 participants with mean ages ranging from 58.6 to 81.6 years, with 14 of them being pooled in a quantitative meta-analysis. The selected RCTs were performed in patients with PD (n = 13) (Yen et al., 2011; Nanhoe-Mahabier et al., 2012; Pompeu et al., 2012; van den Heuvel et al., 2014; Liao et al., 2015a,b; Yang et al., 2016; Carpinella et al., 2017; Gandolfi et al., 2017; Ribas et al., 2017; Cikajlo and Potisk, 2019; Santos et al., 2019; Kafle and Rizvi, 2021) and AD (n = 2) (Padala et al., 2012; Ugur and Sertel, 2020). Most studies included patients with mild-to-moderate Parkinson’s disease (Hoehn and Yahr stages I to III).
TABLE 2
| Author, year | Country | No. of participants (% men) | Age (y), Range/ Mean (SD) | Disease severity (mean ± SD) | Diagnosis | Disease duration (year) mean (SD) | Drug usage | Sensor type | Outcome measures | Time points | Dropout rate | |
| 1 | Carpinella et al., 2017 | Italy | T:37 A:17 (82.3%) C:20 (45.0%) | A: 73.0 (7.1) C:75.6 (8.2) | Hoehn and Yahr stages II to III UPDRS-III (0–56): A:16.6 (6.8) C:22.3 (7.3) | Parkinson’s Disease | A:7.5 (3.2) C:10.3 (5.7) | − | Inertial sensors (TMA); 3D accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer | BBS; 10MWT; UPDRS-III; TUG; ABC; FOGQ; PDQ-39; cop ML sway; cop AP sway | Baseline Intervention: 6–7 weeks Follow-up: 1-month | Post- treatment: 0% End of follow-up: 13.5% |
| 2 | Cikajlo and Potisk, 2019 | Slovenia | T:20 (45%) A:10 (50%) C:10 (40%) | A:67.6 (7.6) C: 71.3 (8.4) | Hoehn and Yahr stages II to III | Parkinson’s Disease | A:7.1 C:7.1 | Dopamine | 3D VR Oculus Rift CV1 head-mounted device | BBT; UPDRS; tfftte, atom, IB, tnot, ATI, atips | Baseline Intervention: 3 weeks | Post- treatment: 0% End of follow-up: 0% |
| 3 | Gandolfi et al., 2017 | Italy | T:70 A:38 (60.5%) C:38 (73.6%) | A:67.45 (7.18) C: 69.84 (9.41) | Modified Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) stages 2.5 to 3 UPDRS score: A:44.13 (24.05) C:50.76 (24.12) | Parkinson’s Disease | A:6.16 (3.81) C:7.47 (3.90) | − | TeleWii balance training + VR telerehabilitation | BBS; falls; ABC; 10MWT; DGI; PDQ-8 | Baseline Intervention: 7 weeks Follow-up: 1 month | Post- treatment: 7.9% End of follow-up: 7.9% |
| 4 | Kafle and Rizvi, 2021 | India | T:60 A:30 (50.0%) C:30 (43.3%) | A:72.17 (8.19) C:72.40 (6.71) | Hoehn and Yahr stages I to II UPDRS A:30.90 (8.33) C:31.27 (7.78) | Parkinson’s Disease | − | Levodopa or its synergists | Nintendo Wii gaming console | BBS;UST;UPDRS | Baseline Intervention: 7 weeks | − |
| 5 | Liao et al., 2015a* | China | T:36 A:12 (50%) C:12 (50%) | A:67.3 (7.1) C: 65.1 (6.7) | Hoehn and Yahr stages I to III A: 2.0 ± 0.7 C:2.0 ± 0.8 | Parkinson’s Disease | A:7.9 (2.7) C:6.9 (2.8) | − | VR-based Wii Fit exercise | TUG, PDQ-39, and FES-I | Baseline Intervention: 6 weeks Follow-up: 1 month | Post- treatment: 0% End of follow-up: 2.8% |
| 6 | Liao et al., 2015b* | China | T:36 A:12 (50%) C:12 (50%) | A:67.3 (7.1) C: 65.1 (6.7) | Hoehn and Yahr stages I to III A: 2.0 ± 0.7 C:2.0 ± 0.8 | Parkinson’s Disease | A:7.9 (2.7) C:6.9 (2.8) | − | VR-based Wii Fit exercise | Gait: Level walking velocity; Stride length; FGA; Sensory organization test | Baseline Intervention 6 weeks Follow-up: 1 month | Post- treatment: 0% End of follow-up: 2.8% |
| 7 | Padala et al., 2012 | United States | T:22 (27%) A:11 (27%) C:11 (27%) | A:79.3 (9.8) C: 81.6 (5.2) | − | Alzheimer’s Dementia | − | − | Nintendo Wii Fit console | BBS; TT;TUG; ADL; IADL; QOL-AD | Baseline Intervention: 8 weeks | − |
| 8 | Pompeu et al., 2012 | Brazil | T:32 (53.1%) A:16 C:16 | T:67.4 (8.1) | Hoehn and Yahr stages I to II UPDRS: T:9.5 (3.4) A:10.1 (3.8) C:8.9 (2.9) | Parkinson’s Disease | − | Levodopa or its synergists | Nintendo Wii Fit console | UPDRS II; BBS | Baseline Intervention7 weeks Follow-up: 60 days | − |
| 9 | Ribas et al., 2017 | Brazil | T:20 (60%) A:10 (40%) C:10 (40%) | T:61 (9.11) A:61.7 (6.83) C:60.2 (11.29) | UPDRS: A: 22.5 (11.5–32) C:20.5 (13.5–27.5) | Parkinson’s Disease | A:6.5 (4) C:7 (2.79) | Dopaminergic medication | Nintendo Wii Fit console | BBS; 6MWT Quality-of-life scores: PDQ-39 Mobility | Baseline Intervention: 12 weeks Follow-up: 60 days | Post- treatment: 0% End of follow-up: 0% |
| 10 | Santos et al., 2019 | Brazil | T:41 A:13 (84.6%) C:14 (78.6%) | A: 61.7 (7.3) C: 64.5 (9.8) | Hoehn and Yahr stages I to III A:1.4 (0.6) C: 1.3 (0.3) | Parkinson’s Disease | A:7.0 (2.8) C:6.5 (2.0) | Levodopa | VR-based Wii Fit exercise | BBS; DGI; TUG Quality-of-life score (PDQ-39): Total | Baseline Intervention8 weeks Follow-up: 2 months | Post- treatment: 0% End of follow-up: 0% |
| 11 | Ugur and Sertel, 2020 | Turkey | T:32 A:16 (68%) T:16 (75%) | A:73.75 (5.16) C:73.13 (3.54) | − | Alzheimer’s Dementia | − | − | VR-based Wii Fit exercise | Tinetti Gait and Balance Test (Balance); five-time Sit-to-Stand Test; Gait Speed | Baseline Intervention: 6 weeks | Post- treatment: 0% End of follow-up: 0% |
| 12 | van den Heuvel et al., 2014 | Netherlands | T:33 (60.6%) A:17 (70.6%) C:16 (50%) | A:66.3 (6.39) C:68.8 (9.68) | Hoehn and Yahr stages II and III UPDRS (Total): A:46.0 (19.81) C:52.0 (21.11) | Parkinson’s Disease | − | A: One patient received intestinal levodopa infusion. One patient received an acetylcholine sterase inhibitor | Inertial sensors (Xsens, Enschede, Netherlands) | FRT; BBS; Single-leg test;10MWT; UPDRS; FES PDQ-39 mobility | Baseline Intervention 6 weeks Follow-up: 12 weeks | Post- treatment: 3.0% End of follow-up: 6.1% |
| 13 | Yang et al., 2016 | China | T:23 (60.9%) A:11 (63.6%) C:12 (58.3%) | A:72.5 (8.4) C:75.4 (6.3) | Hoehn and Yahr stages II and III UPDRS: A:22.5 (12.1) C:21.7 (14.4) | Parkinson’s Disease | A:9.4 (3.6) C:8.3 (4.1) | − | Custom-made virtual reality balance training system | BBS; DGI; Timed Up-and-Go test; PDQ-39; UPDRS-III | Baseline Intervention 6 weeks Follow-up: 2 weeks | Post- treatment: 13.0% End of follow-up: 13.0% |
| 14 | Yen et al., 2011 | China | T:42 A:14 (85.7%) C:14 (85.7%) Untrained control group: 14 (64.3%) | A:70.4 (6.5) C:70.1 (6.9) Untrained control group:71.6 (5.8) | UPDRS-III: A:15.1 (3.2) C:15.9 (2.4) | Parkinson’s Disease | A:6.0 (2.9) C:6.1 (3.3) | Dopamine agonists or dopamine replacement antiparkinsonian medications | Dimensional (3D) VR Balance Training System | SOT | Baseline Intervention 6 weeks Follow-up: 4 weeks | Post- treatment: 9.5% End of follow-up: 23.8% |
| 15 | Nanhoe-Mahabier et al., 2012 | Netherlands | T:20 (80%) A:10 (80%) C: 10 (80%) | A:59.3 (2) C:58.6 (2.5) | UPDRS-III: A:17.9 (2.7) C:15.4 (1.1) | Parkinson’s Disease | A:3.7 (0.8) C:3.9 (0.8) | levodopa equivalent | Balance biofeedback system | Duration until completion of the walking tasks, the 90% range of pitch and roll sway angle and the 90% range of pitch and roll sway angular velocity | Baseline; post-training | None |
Characteristics of the included studies.
SD, standard deviation; TUG, Timed Up and Go test, ABC, Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale; FOGQ, Freezing Of Gait Questionnaire; PDQ-39, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; COP, Center of Pressure; BBT, Box Blocks Test; tfftte, Time from first touch to the end; atom, Average time of manipulation; IB, Inserted boxes; tnot, Total number of tries; ATI, Average tremor indicator; atips, Average tremor indicator per second; UPDRS, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale; UPDRS-III, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale—Motor Examination III; BBS, Berg Balance Scale; falls, number of falls in the previous month; 10MWT, 10-Meter Walking Test; DGI, Dynamic Gait Index; PDQ-8, Parkinson’s Disease Quality-of-Life questionnaire; UST, Unipedal Stance Test; FGA, functional gait assessment; DC, directional control; ME, maximal excursion; MV, movement velocity; SOT, sensory organization test; TE, traditional exercise; FES-I, Falls Efficacy Scale—International; TT, Tinetti Test; ADL, activities of daily living; IADL, instrumental activities of daily living; QOL-AD, quality of life-Alzheimer’s disease; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; ST, Single task; DT, dual task; MFI, multidimensional fatigue inventory; HY, Hoehn and Yahr stage; PG, posture and gait subscore; FRT, functional reach test; HADS, hospital anxiety and depression scale; SOM, somatosensory; VIS, vision; VES, vestibular; PREF, preference. * The participants of the two articles were from the same population, but there were differences in the outcome measures between the two articles.
TABLE 3
| Author, year | Intervention group FITT | Control group ITT | Adverse events | |
| 1 | Carpinella et al., 2017 | Frequency: 45-min sessions three times a week Intensity: mild Time: 20 sessions Type: balance and gait training with biofeedback Gamepad system (changing the reference values of the exercise, including more difficult tasks, changing the perceptive context) (e.g., altering proprioception through foam pads under feet), and/or including a dual task (e.g., walking holding a tray with a ball above) | Frequency: 45-min sessions three times a week Intensity: Mild Time: 20 sessions Type: Conventional physiotherapy [5 min of muscle stretching (hamstrings, quadriceps, and calves) and mobilization exercises (e.g., trunk rotation, hip abduction, flexion), followed by 40 min of balance and gait exercises similar to those performed by the experimental group] | Not mentioned |
| 2 | Cikajlo and Potisk, 2019 | Frequency: 30-min sessions 10 times in 3 weeks Intensity: mild Time: 3 weeks Type: using immersive VR (3D) called “10Cubes” exergaming system to finish the VR task five times to pick and place the 10 virtual cubes in the virtual environment into the open treasure chest using the more affected hand. | Frequency: 30-min sessions 10 times in 3 weeks Intensity: Mild Time: 3 weeks Type: using a non-immersive environment (2D) (a laptop) to move to manipulate the virtual cubes. | None |
| 3 | Gandolfi et al., 2017 | Frequency: 50 min 3 days/week Intensity: mild Time: 7 weeks + 1-month follow-up Type: in-home VR balance training called TeleWii consisted of 21 sessions of balance exercises to finish 10 exergames selected by the physiotherapist | Frequency: 50 min 3 days/week Intensity: Mild Time: 7 weeks + 1-month follow-up Type: in-clinic sensory integration balance training (SIBT) consisted of 21 sessions of balance and gait exercises under different sensory conditions (free vision, blindfolded, wearing a visual-conflict dome, firm/compliant surfaces, and neck extensions) | None |
| 4 | Kafle and Rizvi, 2021 | Frequency: no information Intensity: no information Time: no information Type: using Nintendo Wii FitTM console. | Frequency: no information Intensity: no information Time: no information Type: global exercise | Not mentioned |
| 5 | Liao et al., 2015a | Frequency: 45-min sessions two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 6 weeks + 1-month follow-up Type: virtual reality-based Wii Fit exercise included 10 min of yoga exercises, 15 min of strengthening exercises, and 20 min of balance games | Frequency: 45-min sessions two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 6 weeks + 1-month follow-up Type: traditional exercise included 10 min of stretching exercises, 15 min of strengthening exercises, and 20 min of balance exercises | None |
| 6 | Liao et al., 2015b | Frequency: 45-min sessions two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 6 weeks + 1-month follow-up Type: VR-based Wii Fit exercise included 10 min of yoga exercises, 15 min of strengthening exercises, and 20 min of balance games | Frequency: 45-min sessions two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 6 weeks + 1-month follow-up Type: traditional exercise included 10 min of stretching exercises, 15 min of strengthening exercises, and 20 min of balance exercises | None |
| 7 | Padala et al., 2012 | Frequency: 30-min sessions five times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 8 weeks Type: Wii Fit program included 10 min of yoga, 10 min of strength training, and 10 min of balance games. | Frequency: 30-min sessions five times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 8 weeks Type: walking group walked at their own pace as a group of three or four subjects at any given time with research personnel. | None |
| 8 | Pompeu et al., 2012 | Frequency: 60-min sessions two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 7 weeks + 60-day follow-up Type: 30 min on global exercises (10 min of warming, stretching, and active exercises; 10 min of resistance exercises for limbs; and 10 min of exercises in diagonal patterns for trunk, neck, and limbs) + 30 min on Wii-based motor and cognitive training (playing 10 Wii Fit games included static balance, dynamic balance, and stationary gait) | Frequency: 60-min sessions two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 7 weeks + 60-day follow-up Type: 30 min on global exercises (10 min of warming, stretching, and active exercises; 10 min of resistance exercises for limbs; and 10 min of exercises in diagonal patterns for trunk, neck, and limbs) + 30 min on Wii-based motor and cognitive training (the same movements without the provision of external cues, feedback, and cognitive stimulation) | None |
| 9 | Ribas et al., 2017 | Frequency: 30-min sessions two times a week Intensity: moderate Time:12 weeks + 60-day follow-up Type: seven Wii Fit games: Table Tilt, Tilt City, Penguin | Frequency: 30-min sessions two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 12 weeks + 60-day follow-up Type: conventional exercise program: warming, stretching | |
| Slide, Soccer Heading, Basic Run, Obstacle Course, and Basic Step (a Nintendo video game console with a Wii Balance Board) | and active exercises (10 min); resistance exercises for the limbs (10 min); and diagonal exercises for the trunk, neck, and limbs (10 min). | None | ||
| 10 | Santos et al., 2019 | Frequency: 50 min a day, two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 8 weeks Type: played four games in two sessions (Wii Sport and Wii Fit) standing up. In the first session, they played Boxing and Soccer Heading, and in the second session Golf and Running. Each session was performed for 20 min, with intervals of 1-min rest every 5 min of activity. | Frequency: 50 min a day, two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 8 weeks Type: 30 min of specific diagonals [being superior limbs (flexion–abduction external rotation/extension–adduction–internal rotation); scapula (elevation and posterior depression), pelvis (anterior elevation/posterior depression), lower limbs (flexion–abduction–external rotation/internal extension–adduction–rotation) and 10 min of walking training in orthostasis or trunk extension training in ductus dorsal], with intervals of 1-min rest every 5 min of activity. | Not mentioned |
| 11 | Ugur and Sertel, 2020 | Frequency: 30 min, two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 6 weeks Type: training with games selected from different categories (soccer heading, tilt table, tightrope tension, perfect 10, cycling, tilt city, jogging plus, hula hoop, step basics, and penguin slide) with Nintendo Wii virtual reality device | Frequency: no clear Intensity: no clear Time: no clear Type: routine medical treatments | Not mentioned |
| 12 | van den Heuvel et al., 2014 | Frequency: 60 min, two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 5 weeks + 12-week follow-up Type: Visual feedback (VFT) training, the dynamic balance exercises focused on controlling body posture in the forward, backward, and sideward directions, exploring limits of stability, shifting weight from one foot to another, sit-to-stand movements, and included dual-task exercises. | Frequency: 60 min, two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 5 weeks + 12-week follow-up Type: Conventional balance training, focused on training standing balance and included exercises while standing on one leg or with eyes closed, stepping exercises, dual-task exercises, sit-to-stand exercises, and exercises on the balancing beam or other challenging support surfaces. | None |
| 13 | Yang et al., 2016 | Frequency: 50 min, two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 6 weeks + 8-week follow-up Type: a 10-min warm-up stretching, three 10-min blocks of balance training [practiced the static posture maintaining with the VR balance training system (10 min) and dynamic weight shifting (2 × 10-min blocks)], and two 5-min breaks between blocks. | Frequency: 30 min, two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 6 weeks + 8-week follow-up Type: In conventional balance training, participants practiced static posture maintaining (10-min block) and dynamic weight shifting (2 × 10-min blocks; Supplementary Appendix 2). The therapist in the control group guided the training and provided verbal instructions to correct the participants’ movements. | Not mentioned |
| 14 | Yen et al., 2011 | Frequency: 30 min, two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 6 weeks + 4-week follow-up Type: undergo 10 min of stretching exercises as a warm-up and 20-min VR challenges (including 10 min of the 3D ball-rolling game and 10 min of indoor-outdoor virtual activities.) | Frequency: 30 min, two times a week Intensity: moderate Time: 6 weeks + 4-week follow-up Type: Conventional balance training, undergo 10 min of stretching exercises and 20 min of intervention [(1) static stance, (2) dynamic weight shifting, and (3) external perturbations] | None |
| 15 | Nanhoe-Mahabier et al., 2012 | 12-task balance training with a real-time vibrotactile biofeedback, which was provided at a frequency of 250 Hz by eight vibrotactile sensors spaced equally around the headband. Activation thresholds were set at 40% of the 90% ranges of pitch and roll sway angular velocity derived during the second balance assessment of the first session, for each subject and for each task separately. | The same 12-task balance training without any biofeedback | Not mentioned |
Interventions in the included trials.
The included trials were carried out in China (n = 4), Brazil (n = 3), Italy (n = 2), Netherlands (n = 2), India (n = 1), Slovenia (n = 1), Turkey (n = 1), and the United States (n = 1) (Table 2). Nine studies used the Nintendo Wii Fit (Yen et al., 2011; Padala et al., 2012; Pompeu et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2015a,b; Gandolfi et al., 2017; Ribas et al., 2017; Ugur and Sertel, 2020; Kafle and Rizvi, 2021) connected to a large screen. Four studies (van den Heuvel et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2016; Cikajlo and Potisk, 2019; Santos et al., 2019) played sports games based on VR technology, one study (Carpinella et al., 2017) used a Gamepad system comprising six wearable inertial sensors, and one study (Nanhoe-Mahabier et al., 2012) conducted a balance training session with a real-time vibrotactile biofeedback system containing angular velocity sensors. One trial reported an immediate effect of one-time biofeedback program on trunk sway of PD (Nanhoe-Mahabier et al., 2012), while the rehabilitation process of other 14 trials was completed over 2 months with a minimum of 10 sessions and a maximum of 40 sessions. Besides, the dedicated time per training session ranged from 20 to 60 min; in three studies (Nanhoe-Mahabier et al., 2012; Santos et al., 2019; Kafle and Rizvi, 2021), the treatment time was not given. Regarding treatment frequency, most studies reported a frequency between two and five times a week, and only one study (Kafle and Rizvi, 2021) provided no information about intervention frequency. Two studies (Yang et al., 2016; Gandolfi et al., 2017) were carried out in the home circumstance, involving 99 participants.
Risk of Bias and Quality of Evidence Appraisal
The risk of bias is reported in Supplementary Table 1. Most of the studies (more than 75%) present an unclear risk of bias in deviations from the intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention). More than 50% included studies presented a low risk of bias in the randomization process, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. The quality of evidence appraisal is given in Supplementary Table 2, and the quality ranged from low to moderate.
Outcome Measurements
Primary Outcome: Balance
The Berg balance scale is a comprehensive scale for postural stability assessment. Patients diagnosed with neurodegenerative diseases were assessed for static and dynamic postural control tasks using the BBS (Downs, 2015). The BBS was reported in nine studies (Padala et al., 2012; Pompeu et al., 2012; van den Heuvel et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2016; Carpinella et al., 2017; Gandolfi et al., 2017; Ribas et al., 2017; Santos et al., 2019; Kafle and Rizvi, 2021), with the duration from 3 to 12 weeks. When post-intervention data from nine randomized controlled studies were pooled, a significant improvement was found [WMD = 1.43; 95% CI, 0.50 to 2.36, P = 0.003; I2 = 0.0%, Figure 2(2.1)]. After 0.5–2 months of follow-up, no significant differences were found between the wearable sensor-based exercise and control [≤1-month follow-up, WMD = −0.26; 95% CI, −2.21 to 1.69, P = 0.79; >1-month follow-up, WMD = −0.14; 95% CI, −1.19 to 0.91, P = 0.80, Figures 2(2.2; 2.3)]. Besides, the overall result of this pooled analysis is not significant (WMD = 0.63; 95% CI, −0.03 to 1.28, P = 0.061; I2 = 0.0%, Figure 2). In addition, Egger’s test revealed no evidence of publication bias (P = 0.815).
FIGURE 2
The SOT is used to quantify sensory integration ability for balance using computerized dynamic posturography. It can provide information related to the integration of vision, somatosensory, and vestibular systems for maintaining postural stability (Gera et al., 2016). Only two studies (Yen et al., 2011; Liao et al., 2015b) from China with 78 participants used the SOT, and the results showed no significant effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on the somatosensory score (WMD = −0.63; 95% CI, −1.62 to 0.37, P = 0.216; I2 = 35.0%) (Figure 3A) or the vestibular score (WMD = −5.43; 95% CI, −24.58 to 13.73, P = 0.579; I2 = 93.3%) (Figure 3C). However, a significant change in visual score was found both post-assessment and at 1-month follow-up assessment (WMD = 4.38; 95% CI, 1.69 to 7.07, P = 0.001; I2 = 0.0%) (Figure 3B).
FIGURE 3
Secondary Outcomes
Motor Symptoms
The UPDRS is the most used comprehensive scale of PD severity. The scale has four sub-scales: I = Motivation, Behavior, and Mood; II = ADL; III = Motor Examination; and IV = Complications of Therapy (Goetz et al., 2008). The pooled results of four studies (van den Heuvel et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2016; Carpinella et al., 2017; Kafle and Rizvi, 2021) did not show a significant effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on the UPDRS-III either at the post-intervention or 0.5–1.5-month follow-up (WMD = −0.00; 95% CI, −2.79 to 2.78, P = 0.997; I2 = 46.9%) (Figure 4).
FIGURE 4
Mobility Ability
Five studies (Padala et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2015a; Yang et al., 2016; Carpinella et al., 2017; Santos et al., 2019) used the TUG to evaluate functional mobility. In the TUG, the participants were timed as they stood up from a backrest chair, walked with a normal gait 3 meters forward, and then sat down and leaned back (de Oliveira Silva et al., 2019; Yoo et al., 2020). The pooled analysis showed no significant effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on the TUG test (WMD = −1.06; 95% CI, −2.17 to 0.06, P = 0.589; I2 = 0%) (Figure 5). Three studies (van den Heuvel et al., 2014; Carpinella et al., 2017; Gandolfi et al., 2017) measured the effects on functional mobility by the 10MWT. Our analysis revealed no significant effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on the 10MWT (WMD = 0.01; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.08, P = 0.481; I2 = 0%) (Figure 6).
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
Parkinson’s disease questionnaire-39 is a self-reported quality-of-life questionnaire evaluating mobility and social functions in people with Parkinson’s disease based on a five-point Likert scale (Neff et al., 2018). The PDQ-39 was reported in four studies (Liao et al., 2015a; Yang et al., 2016; Carpinella et al., 2017; Santos et al., 2019), and the pooled analysis showed no significant effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on PDQ-39 scores (WMD = 0.21; 95% CI, −4.24 to 4.66, P = 0.926; I2 = 0%, Figure 7A). The mobility scores of the PDQ-39 were reported in two studies (van den Heuvel et al., 2014; Ribas et al., 2017), and the pooled analysis did reveal no significant effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on these scores (WMD = −0.87; 95% CI, −6.43 to 4.70, P = 0.760; I2 = 0%, Figure 7B; Peto et al., 2001).
FIGURE 7
Functional Gait Abilities
Dynamic gait index (DGI) has emerged as a valid indicator of functional gait abilities for people with balance and vestibular disorders. Scores on the DGI range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating better performance (Bloem et al., 2016). Three RCTs (Yang et al., 2016; Gandolfi et al., 2017; Santos et al., 2019) evaluated the effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on gait performance using the DGI. However, the pooled results did not reveal a significant effect (WMD = −0.55; 95% CI, −1.27 to 0.17, P = 0.135; I2 = 0%) (Figure 8).
FIGURE 8
Fall-Associated Self-Efficacy
Activities-specific balance confidence (ABC) scale measures balance confidence in particular postural control tasks. The ABC scale was employed in two studies (Carpinella et al., 2017; Gandolfi et al., 2017), and there was no significant difference between the wearable sensor-based exercise group and the control group (WMD = 0.40; 95% CI, −4.73 to 5.53, P = 0.879; I2 = 0%, Figure 9).
FIGURE 9
Adverse Events and Acceptability
None of the included RCTs reported any adverse events, such as falling, during study duration. The dropout rate ranged from 0 to 23.5% (Tables 2, 3). One study evaluated the satisfaction of the subject with the wearable sensors, found most of the participants were positive about the device, and considered this a beneficial, reliable, easy to use, comfort, and safe technology (Carpinella et al., 2017).
Discussion
This systematic review explored the effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on improving postural control in patients with neurodegenerative diseases compared with traditional exercise. The results of the meta-analysis including 14 studies indicated that the wearable sensor-based exercise could induce a significant short-term effect on balance, especially for an increased visual gain in the SOT. However, the 3–12-week wearable sensor-based exercise did not seem to improve mobility ability, functional gait abilities, and fall-associated self-efficacy, as the changes did not reach statistical significance. Overall, the wearable sensor-based exercise increases balance in patients with neurodegenerative diseases, but the evidence is lacking to improve postural control during daily activities, such as walking.
The movement disorders associated with neurodegeneration may be explained by various perspectives, such as oxidative stress or mitochondrial dysfunction (Borsche et al., 2021; Dionísio et al., 2021). Due to the complexity of neurodegeneration with many potential intervention targets, the research progress of drug treatment is slow, and the current drug treatment mainly focuses on improving motor symptoms (Armstrong and Okun, 2020; Dar et al., 2020). In contrast, an exercise intervention is a more direct protocol to improve motor symptoms, and the benefits of intervention can also delay the speed of neurodegeneration and improve the quality of life (Bonavita, 2020; Sujkowski et al., 2022). However, traditional exercise interventions often require the involvement of specialists, such as rehabilitation physicians and physical therapists. The quality of the intervention often depends on the experience of the specialists and the patient’s compliance (Botros et al., 2019; Schootemeijer et al., 2020). The involvement of sensor-based equipment brings new possibilities for an exercise intervention (Jahn et al., 2019). The instant biofeedback provided by sensors and the combination with exergame can form a standardized and interesting exercise protocol for patients with neurodegenerative movement disorders (Ribas et al., 2017; Ugur and Sertel, 2020; Kafle and Rizvi, 2021), such as avoiding obstacles or picking fruit.
The wearable sensors are directly attached to the patients to provide immediate and precise biofeedback on the patient’s movements (Albán-Cadena et al., 2021). Optical sensors often require a bright environment, and reflective clothing will affect the accuracy of their motion capture (Warmerdam et al., 2020). Optical sensors also need a wide living room or hospital treatment room to maximize the exercise experience, which may prevent some patients from using optical sensors. Compared with the use of optical sensors, such as cameras, the application environment of wearable sensors is rarely limited. In addition, patients can be trained in a home environment under the remote guidance of professionals with the emergence of commercialized sensor devices (Garcia-Agundez et al., 2019; Milosevic et al., 2020). It can be used as a feasible solution for an exercise intervention under epidemic conditions.
Although the neurodegenerative disease is progressive and the gray matter volume changes in the left inferior parietal cortex, middle temporal gyrus and right anterior precuneus were associated with the balance capacities (Sehm et al., 2014), a significant improvement in balance was found in the wearable sensor-based exercise group at the end of the intervention, which may be due to the real-time feedback and wrong action corrections in the intensive body control training in the protocol. This systematic review showed that most movement modalities in the interventional group used a center of gravity shifting training method, requiring patients to complete the directional and quantitative shifting of the center of gravity (Liao et al., 2015a,b; Yang et al., 2016; Santos et al., 2019). The inertial sensor placed on the waist can directly reflect the change in the center of gravity, while the pressure sensor placed on the sole can indirectly reflect the change in the center of gravity through the offset of the plantar pressure, thereby providing accurate and immediate biofeedback for the patient (Padala et al., 2012; Pompeu et al., 2012; van den Heuvel et al., 2014; Liao et al., 2015a,b; Carpinella et al., 2017; Ribas et al., 2017).
Otherwise, two studies in this systematic review used the SOT and demonstrated a significantly increased score in visual domain, which might owe to the contribution of visual input significantly increased during the wearable sensor-based exercise, compared with the traditional exercises (Yen et al., 2011; Liao et al., 2015b). The increased visual gain in the SOT conditions also reflects the importance of visual input for the control of balance. As balance perturbations tend to occur in dynamic tasks and in response to environmental constraints not present during the SOT, the SOT may provide additional information for clinical evaluation on neurodegenerative disease and deficient sensory processing (Chien et al., 2014).
Previous meta-analysis and systematic reviews concluded promising short- and long-term benefits of exercise on various meaningful outcomes, such as balance, gait, muscle strength, motor, and functional performance (Tomlinson et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2016; Mak et al., 2017). However, compared with the traditional exercise programs, the results for the secondary outcomes showed no significance in the mobility ability, functional gait abilities, and fall-associated self-efficacy in the wearable sensor-based exercise group. Impaired flexibility and muscle weakness are two common problems that may affect postural control and mobility. As compared to neurologically normal adults, people with neurodegenerative disease had a reduced range of trunk motion, which could partially be explained by axial muscle rigidity (Schenkman et al., 2001), with a reduction in muscle strength by 30–50% (Inkster et al., 2003).
Furthermore, limited by the technical conditions of the sensor as a piece of external equipment, the training protocol in the included studies mainly consisted of the control tasks with a small range of body sway. There was a lack of activities of daily living training that simulate daily scenes, such as walking (Carpinella et al., 2017; Cikajlo and Potisk, 2019). In this meta-analysis, the intervention duration was 3–12 weeks, and the negative results may be associated with overall short treatment durations with a relatively low frequency (an average of 6–7 weeks with two–three times a week). These treatment durations would be considered short relative to multimodal physical therapy for Parkinson’s disease (Tomlinson et al., 2012). On the other hand, although these measurements are the most frequently assessed in clinical practices, they might not have been sensitive enough to detect specific wearable sensor-based exercise training-related changes in dynamic postural control. Moreover, we did not find evidence that factors, such as control group (i.e., usual care vs. conventional training), sensor type, and type of training paradigm, were related to these negative findings, and the limited number of RCTs did not allow to draw definitive conclusions.
People with neurodegenerative diseases are nearly two times as likely to experience a fall as a healthy older person, often leading to debilitating effects on confidence, activity levels, and quality of life (Ashburn et al., 2019). A meta-analysis showed that performance confidence in overcoming barriers to exercise was best addressed with longer-term strategies that provided time for people to experience successfully conquering such barriers over a longer period (Higgins et al., 2014). With regard to the fall-associated self-efficacy in patients with neurodegenerative diseases, the results of our systematic review also showed that the 3–12-week wearable sensor-based exercise cannot improve fall-associated self-efficacy significantly, which might be due to the relatively short intervention duration. Moreover, people with neurodegenerative diseases may suffer from anxiety and depression, which could negatively impact self-efficacy (Stevens et al., 2020), and also, the community and societal factors may account for an important proportion of the improvement in self-efficacy (Bellou et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2016; Rosa Silva et al., 2020). Multidisciplinary teams, such as exercise specialists, occupational therapists, and psychologists, should take cognitive and psychological symptoms into account when working with these patients to maximize the potential effectiveness of treatment, and social workers may be needed to help patients with neurodegenerative diseases reintegrate into the community and society (Stożek et al., 2016; Homayoun, 2018; Ritter and Bonsaksen, 2019). Future research is recommended to construct a comprehensive intervention system for fall-associated self-efficacy.
Strengths and Limitations
The strength of this meta-analysis is that only RCTs were included. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to focus on postural control ability in patients with neurodegenerative diseases compared with traditional therapeutic exercise. However, several limitations need to be highlighted in this systematic review. First, as an indicator of postural stability, the BBS has been significantly improved, but whether the degree of postural stability improvement can lead to effective clinical improvement in movement disorders is unclear. Second, due to the insufficient number of included studies, no significant improvement was found in indicators related to social life functions, such as activities of daily living and quality of life. Finally, the quality of the evidence in this article ranged from moderate to very low (Supplementary Table S2). Therefore, caution should be applied, however, to avoid overestimation of findings given the several methodological weaknesses in available studies, such as short follow-up (<12 months), small sample size (n < 100), and missed evaluation of facilitator.
Conclusion
Compared with traditional exercise interventions, the wearable sensor-based exercise can significantly improve balance in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. However, there was still a lack of evidence showing the superiority of wearable sensor-based exercise technology for other indicators of dynamic postural control, such as motor symptoms, mobility ability, functional gait abilities, and fall-associated self-efficacy. In future, it is necessary to conduct more research on the effect of wearable sensor-based exercise on sensory organization and try to build a comprehensive rehabilitation treatment system to improve both postural control and quality of life.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
All raw data included in this study are available upon request by contact with the corresponding author.
Author contributions
XL and QD had the original idea. XL, ZC, and MZ performed the literature search. QD and HG screened the studies using the eligibility criteria and undertook the data collection. XZ and JT assessed the risk of bias. XL, YY, and SG analyzed, interpreted, and discussed the results. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
The authors disclose receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the Advanced and Appropriate Technology Promotion Projects of Shanghai Municipal Health Commission (2019SY021), Action Plan for Sustainable Development of Science and Technology Innovation in Chongming District, Shanghai (CKY2021-50), and Chongming District Medical Key Specialty Project.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Juping Liang for providing support and advice.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2022.934844/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AarslandD.BatzuL.HallidayG. M.GeurtsenG. J.BallardC.Ray ChaudhuriK.et al (2021). Parkinson disease-associated cognitive impairment.Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers7:47. 10.1038/s41572-021-00280-3
2
Albán-CadenaA. C.Villalba-MenesesF.Pila-VarelaK. O.Moreno-CalvoA.Villalba-MenesesC. P.Almeida-GalárragaD. A. (2021). Wearable sensors in the diagnosis and study of Parkinson’s disease symptoms: a systematic review.J. Med. Eng. Technol.45532–545. 10.1080/03091902.2021.1922528
3
ArgentR.SlevinP.BevilacquaA.NeliganM.DalyA.CaulfieldB. (2019). Wearable sensor-based exercise biofeedback for orthopaedic rehabilitation: a mixed methods user evaluation of a prototype system.Sensors19:432. 10.3390/s19020432
4
ArmstrongM. J.OkunM. S. (2020). Diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson disease: a review.JAMA323548–560. 10.1001/jama.2019.22360
5
AshburnA.PickeringR.McIntoshE.HulbertS.RochesterL.RobertsH. C.et al (2019). Exercise- and strategy-based physiotherapy-delivered intervention for preventing repeat falls in people with Parkinson’s: the PDSAFE RCT.Health Technol. Assess.231–150. 10.3310/hta23360
6
AtkinsD.BestD.BrissP. A.EcclesM.Falck-YtterY.FlottorpS.et al (2004). Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.BMJ328:1490. 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490
7
BellouV.BelbasisL.TzoulakiI.EvangelouE.IoannidisJ. P. (2016). Environmental risk factors and Parkinson’s disease: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.Parkinsonism Relat. Disord.231–9. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.12.008
8
BloemB. R.MarinusJ.AlmeidaQ.DibbleL.NieuwboerA.PostB.et al (2016). Measurement instruments to assess posture, gait, and balance in Parkinson’s disease: critique and recommendations.Mov. Disord.311342–1355. 10.1002/mds.26572
9
BonavitaS. (2020). Exercise and Parkinson’s Disease.Adv. Exp. Med. Biol.1228289–301. 10.1007/978-981-15-1792-1_19
10
BorscheM.PereiraS. L.KleinC.GrünewaldA. (2021). Mitochondria and Parkinson’s disease: clinical, molecular, and translational aspects.J. Parkinsons Dis.1145–60. 10.3233/jpd-201981
11
BotrosA.SchützN.CamenzindM.UrwylerP.BolligerD.VanbellingenT.et al (2019). Long-term home-monitoring sensor technology in patients with Parkinson’s disease-acceptance and adherence.Sensors19:5169. 10.3390/s19235169
12
CarpinellaI.CattaneoD.BonoraG.BowmanT.MartinaL.MontesanoA.et al (2017). Wearable sensor-based biofeedback training for balance and gait in Parkinson disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial.Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.98622–630.e3. 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.11.003
13
CassS. P. (2017). Alzheimer’s disease and exercise: a literature review.Curr. Sports Med. Rep.1619–22. 10.1249/jsr.0000000000000332
14
ChienJ. H.EikemaD. J.MukherjeeM.StergiouN. (2014). Locomotor sensory organization test: a novel paradigm for the assessment of sensory contributions in gait.Ann. Biomed. Eng.422512–2523. 10.1007/s10439-014-1112-7
15
CikajloI.PotiskK. P. (2019). Advantages of using 3D virtual reality based training in persons with Parkinson’s disease: a parallel study.J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.16:14. 10.1186/s12984-019-0601-1
16
ConradssonD.NeroH.LöfgrenN.HagströmerM.FranzénE. (2017). Monitoring training activity during gait-related balance exercise in individuals with Parkinson’s disease: a proof-of-concept-study.BMC Neurol.17:19. 10.1186/s12883-017-0804-7
17
DarK. B.BhatA. H.AminS.ReshiB. A.ZargarM. A.MasoodA.et al (2020). Elucidating critical proteinopathic mechanisms and potential drug targets in neurodegeneration.Cell Mol. Neurobiol.40313–345. 10.1007/s10571-019-00741-0
18
de Oliveira SilvaF.FerreiraJ. V.PlácidoJ.ChagasD.PraxedesJ.GuimarãesC.et al (2019). Stages of mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease can be differentiated by declines in timed up and go test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr.85:103941. 10.1016/j.archger.2019.103941
19
DionísioP. A.AmaralJ. D.RodriguesC. M. P. (2021). Oxidative stress and regulated cell death in Parkinson’s disease.Ageing Res. Rev.67:101263. 10.1016/j.arr.2021.101263
20
DommershuijsenL. J.HeshmatollahA.DarweeshS. K.KoudstaalP. J.IkramM. A.IkramM. K. (2020). Life expectancy of parkinsonism patients in the general population.Parkinsonism Relat. Disord.7794–99.
21
DonathL.RösslerR.FaudeO. (2016). Effects of virtual reality training (exergaming) compared to alternative exercise training and passive control on standing balance and functional mobility in healthy community-dwelling seniors: a meta-analytical review.Sports Med.461293–1309. 10.1007/s40279-016-0485-1
22
DownsS. (2015). The berg balance scale.J. Physiother.61:46. 10.1016/j.jphys.2014.10.002
23
DuggerB. N.DicksonD. W. (2017). Pathology of neurodegenerative diseases.Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.9:a028035.
24
ErkkinenM. G.KimM.-O.GeschwindM. D. (2018). Clinical neurology and epidemiology of the major neurodegenerative diseases.Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol.10:a033118.
25
GandolfiM.GeroinC.DimitrovaE.BoldriniP.WaldnerA.BonadimanS.et al (2017). Virtual reality telerehabilitation for postural instability in Parkinson’s disease: a multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial.Biomed. Res. Int.2017:7962826. 10.1155/2017/7962826
26
Garcia-AgundezA.FolkertsA. K.KonradR.CasermanP.TregelT.GoossesM.et al (2019). Recent advances in rehabilitation for Parkinson’s disease with exergames: a systematic review.J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.16:17. 10.1186/s12984-019-0492-1
27
GeraG.ChesnuttJ.ManciniM.HorakF. B.KingL. A. (2018). Inertial sensor-based assessment of central sensory integration for balance after mild traumatic brain injury.Mil. Med.183(Suppl._1), 327–332. 10.1093/milmed/usx162
28
GeraG.FreemanD. L.BlackintonM. T.HorakF. B.KingL. (2016). Identification of balance deficits in people with Parkinson disease; is the sensory organization test enough?Int. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil.4:322. 10.4172/2329-9096.1000322
29
GoetzC. G.TilleyB. C.ShaftmanS. R.StebbinsG. T.FahnS.Martinez-MartinP.et al (2008). Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results.Mov. Disord.232129–2170. 10.1002/mds.22340
30
Gomez-PinillaF.HillmanC. (2013). The influence of exercise on cognitive abilities.Comprehens. Physiol.3:403.
31
GordtK.GerhardyT.NajafiB.SchwenkM. (2018). Effects of wearable sensor-based balance and gait training on balance, gait, and functional performance in healthy and patient populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Gerontology6474–89. 10.1159/000481454
32
HigginsT. J.MiddletonK. R.WinnerL.JanelleC. M. (2014). Physical activity interventions differentially affect exercise task and barrier self-efficacy: a meta-analysis.Health Psychol.33891–903. 10.1037/a0033864
33
HirschL.JetteN.FrolkisA.SteevesT.PringsheimT. (2016). The incidence of Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neuroepidemiology46292–300. 10.1159/000445751
34
HomayounH. (2018). Parkinson disease.Ann. Intern. Med.169Itc33–Itc48. 10.7326/aitc201809040
35
HorakF.KingL.ManciniM. (2015). Role of body-worn movement monitor technology for balance and gait rehabilitation.Phys. Ther.95461–470. 10.2522/ptj.20140253
36
InksterL. M.EngJ. J.MacIntyreD. L.StoesslA. J. (2003). Leg muscle strength is reduced in Parkinson’s disease and relates to the ability to rise from a chair.Mov. Disord.18157–162. 10.1002/mds.10299
37
JahnK.FreibergerE.EskofierB. M.BollheimerC.KluckenJ. (2019). Balance and mobility in geriatric patients : assessment and treatment of neurological aspects.Z. Gerontol. Geriatr.52316–323. 10.1007/s00391-019-01561-z
38
JakobV.KüderleA.KlugeF.KluckenJ.EskofierB. M.WinklerJ.et al (2021). Validation of a sensor-based gait analysis system with a gold-standard motion capture system in patients with Parkinson’s disease.Sensors21:7680. 10.3390/s21227680
39
KafleA.RizviS. R. (2021). Effect of wii-based motor and cognitive training on activities of daily living in patients with Parkinson’s disease.Indian J. Physiother. Occupat. Ther.151–7. 10.37506/ijpot.v15i3.16157
40
KingwellK. (2019). An exercise-linked mediator of memory protection.Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.1897–98.
41
KovacsG. G. (2017). Concepts and classification of neurodegenerative diseases.Handb. Clin. Neurol.145301–307. 10.1016/b978-0-12-802395-2.00021-3
42
LeeH. K.AltmannL. J.McFarlandN.HassC. J. (2016). The relationship between balance confidence and control in individuals with Parkinson’s disease.Parkinsonism Relat. Disord.2624–28. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2016.02.015
43
LiaoY.-Y.YangY.-R.ChengS.-J.WuY.-R.FuhJ.-L.WangR.-Y. (2015a). Virtual reality–based training to improve obstacle-crossing performance and dynamic balance in patients with Parkinson’s disease.Neurorehabil. Neural Repair29658–667. 10.1177/1545968314562111
44
LiaoY. Y.YangY. R.WuY. R.WangR. Y. (2015b). Virtual reality-based wii fit training in improving muscle strength, sensory integration ability, and walking abilities in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a randomized control trial.Int. J. Gerontol.9190–195. 10.1016/j.ijge.2014.06.007
45
MakM. K.Wong-YuI. S.ShenX.ChungC. L. (2017). Long-term effects of exercise and physical therapy in people with Parkinson disease.Nat. Rev. Neurol.13689–703. 10.1038/nrneurol.2017.128
46
MengL.HuangX.YangY.PangJ.ChenL.MingD. (2021). An inertial sensor-based algorithm for turning detection during gait.Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc.20216372–6375. 10.1109/embc46164.2021.9630374
47
MengL.LiX.LiC.TsangR. C. C.ChenY.GeY.et al (2020). Effects of exercise in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil.99801–810. 10.1097/phm.0000000000001419
48
MilosevicB.LeardiniA.FarellaE. (2020). Kinect and wearable inertial sensors for motor rehabilitation programs at home: state of the art and an experimental comparison.Biomed. Eng. Online19:25. 10.1186/s12938-020-00762-7
49
MorelE.ArmandS.AssalF.AllaliG. (2020). Parkinsonian gait in aging: a feature of Alzheimer’s pathology?Exp. Gerontol.134:110905. 10.1016/j.exger.2020.110905
50
Nanhoe-MahabierW.AllumJ. H.PasmanE. P.OvereemS.BloemB. R. (2012). The effects of vibrotactile biofeedback training on trunk sway in Parkinson’s disease patients.Parkinsonism Relat. Disord.181017–1021. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2012.05.018
51
NeffC.WangM. C.MartelH. (2018). Using the PDQ-39 in routine care for Parkinson’s disease.Parkinsonism Relat. Disord.53105–107. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2018.05.019
52
NiM.HazzardJ. B.SignorileJ. F.LucaC. (2018). Exercise guidelines for gait function in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurorehabil. Neural Repair32872–886. 10.1177/1545968318801558
53
NiuH.Álvarez-ÁlvarezI.Guillén-GrimaF.Aguinaga-OntosoI. (2017). Prevalence and incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in Europe: a meta-analysis.Neurologia32523–532. 10.1016/j.nrl.2016.02.016
54
OkadaY.OhtsukaH.KamataN.YamamotoS.SawadaM.NakamuraJ.et al (2021). Effectiveness of long-term physiotherapy in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J. Parkinsons Dis.111619–1630. 10.3233/jpd-212782
55
PadalaK. P.PadalaP. R.MalloyT. R.GeskeJ. A.DubbertP. M.DennisR. A.et al (2012). Wii-Fit for improving gait and balance in an assisted living facility: a pilot study.J. Aging Res.2012:597573. 10.1155/2012/597573
56
PenderN.Pinto-GrauM.HardimanO. (2020). Cognitive and behavioural impairment in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Curr. Opin. Neurol.33649–654.
57
PetoV.JenkinsonC.FitzpatrickR. (2001). Determining minimally important differences for the PDQ-39 Parkinson’s disease questionnaire.Age Ageing30299–302. 10.1093/ageing/30.4.299
58
PompeuJ. E.MendesF. A.SilvaK. G.LoboA. M.Oliveira TdeP.ZomignaniA. P.et al (2012). Effect of Nintendo Wii™-based motor and cognitive training on activities of daily living in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a randomised clinical trial.Physiotherapy98196–204. 10.1016/j.physio.2012.06.004
59
PorciunculaF.RotoA. V.KumarD.DavisI.RoyS.WalshC. J.et al (2018). Wearable movement sensors for rehabilitation: a focused review of technological and clinical advances.PM R10(9 Suppl. 2), S220–S232. 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.06.013
60
RayS.AgarwalP. (2020). Depression and anxiety in Parkinson disease.Clin. Geriatr. Med.3693–104. 10.1016/j.cger.2019.09.012
61
RibasC. G.da SilvaL. A.CorreaM. R.TeiveH. G.ValderramasS. (2017). Effectiveness of exergaming in improving functional balance, fatigue and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial.Parkinsonism Relat. Disord.3813–18. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.02.006
62
RitterV. C.BonsaksenT. (2019). Improvement in quality of life following a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for patients with Parkinson’s disease.J. Multidiscip. Healthc.12219–227. 10.2147/jmdh.S202827
63
Rosa SilvaJ. P.Santiago JúniorJ. B.Dos SantosE. L.de CarvalhoF. O.de França CostaI. M. P.MendonçaD. M. F. (2020). Quality of life and functional independence in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review.Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.1111–11. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.032
64
RyanN. S.ShakespeareT. J.LehmannM.KeihaninejadS.NicholasJ. M.LeungK. K.et al (2014). Motor features in posterior cortical atrophy and their imaging correlates.Neurobiol. Aging352845–2857.
65
SantosP.MachadoT.SantosL.RibeiroN.MeloA. (2019). Efficacy of the nintendo wii combination with conventional exercises in the rehabilitation of individuals with Parkinson’s disease: a randomized clinical trial.Neurorehabilitation45255–263. 10.3233/nre-192771
66
SchellW. E.MarV. S.Da SilvaC. P. (2019). Correlation of falls in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with objective measures of balance, strength, and spasticity.Neurorehabilitation4485–93. 10.3233/nre-182531
67
SchenkmanM. L.ClarkK.XieT.KuchibhatlaM.ShinbergM.RayL. (2001). Spinal movement and performance of a standing reach task in participants with and without Parkinson disease.Phys. Ther.811400–1411. 10.1093/ptj/81.8.1400
68
SchootemeijerS.van der KolkN. M.EllisT.MirelmanA.NieuwboerA.NieuwhofF.et al (2020). Barriers and motivators to engage in exercise for persons with Parkinson’s disease.J. Parkinsons Dis.101293–1299. 10.3233/jpd-202247
69
SchwenkM.SabbaghM.LinI.MorganP.GrewalG. S.MohlerJ.et al (2016). Sensor-based balance training with motion feedback in people with mild cognitive impairment.J. Rehabil. Res. Dev.53945–958. 10.1682/jrrd.2015.05.0089
70
SehmB.TaubertM.CondeV.WeiseD.ClassenJ.DukartJ.et al (2014). Structural brain plasticity in Parkinson’s disease induced by balance training.Neurobiol. Aging35232–239. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2013.06.021
71
ShenX.Wong-YuI. S.MakM. K. (2016). Effects of exercise on falls, balance, and gait ability in Parkinson’s disease: a meta-analysis.Neurorehabil. Neural Repair30512–527. 10.1177/1545968315613447
72
ShihM.-C.WangR.-Y.ChengS.-J.YangY.-R. (2016). Effects of a balance-based exergaming intervention using the Kinect sensor on posture stability in individuals with Parkinson’s disease: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.13:78. 10.1186/s12984-016-0185-y
73
SilvaK. G.De FreitasT. B.DonáF.GanançaF. F.FerrazH. B.Torriani-PasinC.et al (2017). Effects of virtual rehabilitation versus conventional physical therapy on postural control, gait, and cognition of patients with Parkinson’s disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled feasibility trial.Pilot Feasibility Stud.3:68. 10.1186/s40814-017-0210-3
74
StevensA.StantonR.RebarA. L. (2020). Helping people with Parkinson disease build exercise self-efficacy.Phys. Ther.100205–208. 10.1093/ptj/pzz160
75
StożekJ.RudzińskaM.Pustułka-PiwnikU.SzczudlikA. (2016). The effect of the rehabilitation program on balance, gait, physical performance and trunk rotation in Parkinson’s disease.Aging Clin. Exp. Res.281169–1177. 10.1007/s40520-015-0506-1
76
SujkowskiA.HongL.WessellsR. J.TodiS. V. (2022). The protective role of exercise against age-related neurodegeneration.Ageing Res. Rev.74101543. 10.1016/j.arr.2021.101543
77
SwansonR.RobinsonK. M. (2020). Geriatric rehabilitation: gait in the elderly, fall prevention and Parkinson disease.Med. Clin. North Am.104327–343. 10.1016/j.mcna.2019.10.012
78
TomlinsonC. L.PatelS.MeekC.HerdC. P.ClarkeC. E.StoweR.et al (2012). Physiotherapy intervention in Parkinson’s disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ345:e5004. 10.1136/bmj.e5004
79
UgurF.SertelM. (2020). The effect of virtual reality applications on balance and gait speed in individuals with alzheimer dementia: a pilot study.Topics Geriatr. Rehabil.36221–229. 10.1097/TGR.0000000000000285
80
van den HeuvelM. R. C.KwakkelG.BeekP. J.BerendseH. W.DaffertshoferA.van WegenE. E. H. (2014). Effects of augmented visual feedback during balance training in Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomized clinical trial.Parkinsonism Relat. Disord.201352–1358. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.09.022
81
WaiteS. J.MaitlandS.ThomasA.YarnallA. J. (2021). Sarcopenia and frailty in individuals with dementia: a systematic review.Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr.92:104268. 10.1016/j.archger.2020.104268
82
WarmerdamE.RomijndersR.WelzelJ.HansenC.SchmidtG.MaetzlerW. (2020). Quantification of arm swing during walking in healthy adults and Parkinson’s disease patients: wearable sensor-based algorithm development and validation.Sensors20:5963. 10.3390/s20205963
83
YangW. C.WangH. K.WuR. M.LoC. S.LinK. H. (2016). Home-based virtual reality balance training and conventional balance training in Parkinson’s disease: a randomized controlled trial.J. Formos. Med. Assoc.115734–743. 10.1016/j.jfma.2015.07.012
84
YenC. Y.LinK. H.HuM. H.WuR. M.LuT. W.LinC. H. (2011). Effects of virtual reality-augmented balance training on sensory organization and attentional demand for postural control in people with Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial.Phys. Ther.91862–874. 10.2522/ptj.20100050
85
YooJ. E.JangW.ShinD. W.JeongS. M.JungH. W.YounJ.et al (2020). Timed up and go test and the risk of Parkinson’s disease: a nation-wide retrospective cohort study.Mov. Disord.351263–1267. 10.1002/mds.28055
Summary
Keywords
neurodegenerative diseases, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, wearable sensor-based exercise, musculoskeletal disorders, balance, dynamic postural control
Citation
Li X, Chen Z, Yue Y, Zhou X, Gu S, Tao J, Guo H, Zhu M and Du Q (2022) Effect of Wearable Sensor-Based Exercise on Musculoskeletal Disorders in Individuals With Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Aging Neurosci. 14:934844. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.934844
Received
03 May 2022
Accepted
23 June 2022
Published
26 July 2022
Volume
14 - 2022
Edited by
Howe Liu, University of North Texas Health Science Center, United States
Reviewed by
Xiao Bao, Yuebei People’s Hospital, China; Hiral Master, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Li, Chen, Yue, Zhou, Gu, Tao, Guo, Zhu and Du.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Meiwen Zhu, zxyyzmw@163.comQing Du, duqing@xinhuamed.com.cn
†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
This article was submitted to Neurocognitive Aging and Behavior, a section of the journal Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.