Effects of therapeutic exercise on disease severity, balance, and functional Independence among individuals with cerebellar ataxia: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Balance impairments are common in cerebellar ataxia. Exercises are beneficial in this population. OBJECTIVE: Explore the benefits of therapeutic exercises on disease severity, balance and functional independence in cerebellar ataxia. METHODS: Databases were searched from inception until July 2021. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS); and quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included and eight studies of low to high PEDro methodological quality were meta-analyzed. 'Low' to 'moderate' GRADE quality evidence supports the use of therapeutic exercises to reduce disease severity, assessed using the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia [weighted mean difference (WMD): -3.3; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -3.7, -2.8; p < .01]; and improve balance, assessed using the Berg Balance Scale (WMD: 2.6; 95%CI: 1.1, 4.2; p < .01). The effect of therapeutic exercises on functional independence was insignificant (WMD: 1.6; 95%CI: -1.5, 4.6; p = .31). CONCLUSION: Low to moderate evidence from studies of low to high methodological quality provides some support for therapeutic exercises for reducing disease severity among non-hereditary degenerative cerebellar ataxia and improving balance among acquired cerebellar ataxia. Exercises did not benefit functional independence. Additional studies of large sample size and high methodological quality are necessary to substantiate these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".