Evidence-Based Physiotherapeutic Interventions Enhancing Hand Dexterity, Activities of Daily Living and Quality of Life of Parkinson’s Disease Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review primarily aims to identify the optimal physiotherapeutic intervention to improve hand dexterity in Parkinson's Disease (PD) patients. The secondary objectives were to identify the hand dexterity physiotherapeutic interventions available for PD patients, and to determine the quality of these interventions. REVIEW METHODS: Eight electronic databases were systematically searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trial full-text articles using the established search strategy. The primary outcomes of interest were measurements for hand dexterity and activities of daily living (ADL). RESULTS: A total of 11 studies comprising 647 participants with PD were included. Most studies had a high risk of performance bias and an unclear risk of selection bias. The intervention training period ranged from a single session to 12 weeks. Compared to their respective control group, eight out of 11 studies revealed significant results in hand dexterity, two out of three studies reported positive effects on ADL, four of seven studies showed significant improvements in upper limb motor performance, and two studies perceived positive benefits in terms of overall quality of life. Five out of 11 studies that recorded the occurrence of adverse events reported no adverse events post-intervention. CONCLUSION: The dearth of evidence made it difficult to support any one intervention as the best intervention when compared to the other PD treatments in upper limb rehabilitation. Regardless, a home-based dexterity rehabilitation programme is still a promising approach to enhance dexterity-related functional abilities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".