Use este identificador para citar ou linkar para este item: https://repositorio.ufms.br/handle/123456789/4900
Registro completo de metadados
Campo DCValorIdioma
dc.creatorOliveira, Renata Terra de-
dc.creatorBrandão, Patrícia de Morais Ferreira-
dc.creatorCharro, Patrícia David-
dc.creatorChristofoletti, Gustavo-
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-09T13:53:17Z-
dc.date.available2021-05-14-
dc.date.issued2021-05-14-
dc.identifier.citation1. Oh J, Vidal-Jordana A, Montalban X. Multiple sclerosis: clinical aspects. Curr Opin Neurol. 2018;31(6):752-759; doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000622. 2. Yamasaki R, Kira JI. Multiple sclerosis. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1190:217-247; doi: 10.1007/978-981-32-9636-7_14. 3. Beltrán E, Gerdes LA, Hansen J, Flierl-Hecht A, Krebs S, Blum H, et al. Early adaptive immune activation detected in monozygotic twins with prodromal multiple sclerosis. J Clin Invest. 2019;129(11):4758-4768; doi: 10.1172/JCI128475. 4. Callesen J, Dalgas U, Brincks J, Cattaneo D. How much does balance and muscle strength impact walking in persons with multiple sclerosis? - A cross-sectional study. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2019;29:137-144; doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2019.01.034 5. Felippe LA, Salgado PR, de Souza Silvestre D, Smaili SM, Christofoletti G. A controlled clinical trial on the effects of exercise on cognition and mobility in adults with multiple sclerosis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;98(2):97-102; doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000987. 6. Cameron MH, Nilsagard Y. Balance, gait, and falls in multiple sclerosis. Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;159:237-250; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63916-5.00015-X. 7. Patten SB, Marrie RA, Carta MG. Depression in multiple sclerosis. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2017;29(5):463-472; doi: 10.1080/09540261.2017.1322555. 8. Sanai SA, Saini V, Benedict RH, Zivadinov R, Teter BE, Ramanathan M, et al. Aging and multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2016;22(6):717-725; doi: 10.1177/1352458516634871. 9. Vaughn CB, Jakimovski D, Kavak KS, Ramanathan M, Benedict RHB, Zivadinov R, et al. Epidemiology and treatment of multiple sclerosis in elderly populations. Nat Rev Neurol. 2019;15(6):329-342; doi: 10.1038/s41582-019-0183-3. 10. Fritz NE, Kloos AD, Kegelmeyer DA, Kaur P, Nichols-Larsen DS. Supplementary motor area connectivity and dual-task walking variability in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2019;396:159-164; doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2018.11.015. 11. Etemadi Y. Dual task cost of cognition is related to fall risk in patients with multiple sclerosis: a prospective study. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(2):278-284; doi: 10.1177/0269215516637201. 12. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33(11):1444-1452; doi: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444. 13. Hilfiker R, Vaney C, Gattlen B, Meichtry A, Deriaz O, Lugon-Moulin V, et al. Local dynamic stability as a responsive index for the evaluation of rehabilitation effect on fall risk in patients with multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal study. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6:260; doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-260. 14. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The “Timed Up and Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39(2):142-148; doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x. 15. Learmonth YC1, Paul L, McFadyen AK, Mattison P, Miller L. Reliability and clinical significance of mobility and balance assessments in multiple sclerosis. Int J Rehabil Res. 2012;35(1):69-74; doi: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e328350b65f. 16. Dawson R. How significant is a boxplot outlier? J Stat Educ. 2011;19(2):1-13; doi: 10.1080/10691898.2011.11889610. 17. Dehghani A, Khoramkish M, Shahsavari Isfahani S. Challenges in the daily living activities of patients with multiple sclerosis: A qualitative content analysis. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2019;7(3):201-210; doi: 10.30476/IJCBNM.2019.44995. 18. Smrtka J, Brown T, Bjorklund G. Loss of mobility and the patient burden of multiple sclerosis: expert opinion on relevance to daily clinical practice. Postgrad Med. 2016;128(1):145-51; doi: 10.1080/00325481.2016.1120162. 19. Denommé LT, Mandalfino P, Cinelli ME. Strategies used by individuals with multiple sclerosis and with mild disability to maintain dynamic stability during a steering task. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(6):1811-1822; doi: 10.1007/s00221-014-3873-5. ARTIGO ORIGINAL Revista Movimenta 2021; 14(1):3-9 9 20. Mortaza N, Abu Osman NA, Mehdikhani N. Are the spatio-temporal parameters of gait capable of distinguishing a faller from a non-faller elderly? Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2014;50(6):677-691; available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24831570/ 21. Comber L, Galvin R, Coote S. Gait deficits in people with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gait Posture. 2017;51:25-35; doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.09.026. 22. Muratori L, Martin E, Fafard L, Bumstead B, Zarif M, Gudesbblatt M. Multiple sclerosis, EDSS and gait: Putting legs that work on a walking scale. Neurology. 2016; 86 (16 Supplement): P2.126; available from: https://n.neurology.org/content/86/16_Supplement/P2.126. 23. Conradsson D, Ytterberg C, von Koch L, Johansson S. Changes in disability in people with multiple sclerosis: a 10-year prospective study. J Neurol. 2018;265(1):119-126; doi: 10.1007/s00415-017-8676-8. 24. Sumowski JF, Benedict R, Enzinger C, Filippi M, Geurts JJ, Hamalainen P, et al. Cognition in multiple sclerosis: State of the field and priorities for the future. Neurology. 2018;90(6):278-288. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004977.pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn1984-4298pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.ufms.br/handle/123456789/4900-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To investigate velocity and cadence in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) submitted to different walking tasks, and to compare the results with those found in healthy control peers. Methods: One hundred thirty-three participants, sixty-six with MS and sixty-seven without MS, were enrolled in this study. Subjects were divided into three groups according to clinical condition and disease severity. Group 1 was formed by forty mild stage subjects with MS, group 2 was composed by twenty-six moderate stage subjects with MS and group 3 was formed by sixty-seven healthy control peers. Participants’ velocity (meters/second) and cadence (steps/minute) were assessed during a walking test, using a two-dimensional gait system. The tests were applied with motor and cognitive distractors. Statistical procedures involved repeated measures analyses of variance to test main effects for group and task. Significance was set at 5%. Results: The results showed velocity as being task- and group- dependent, id est, the impact on the outcome differs according to clinical condition (p=0.001; power of 99.9%) and to task complexity (p=0.001; power of 99.9%). Cadence, differently, showed to be task- but not group-dependent. That is, complex tasks affect cadence in both groups (p=0.001; power of 99.9%) but on a similar basis (p=0.290; power of 26.8%). Conclusion: The results suggest that in MS clinical condition and disease severity impact gait velocity on a bigger extend than cadence. Further studies should be carried out to investigate the adaptation mechanisms that occur in MS during challenging mobility situations.pt_BR
dc.languageengpt_BR
dc.publisherUniversidade Estadual de Goiáspt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofMovimentapt_BR
dc.rightsAcesso Abertopt_BR
dc.rightsAttribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Brazil*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/br/*
dc.subjectMultiple Sclerosispt_BR
dc.subjectMobility limitationpt_BR
dc.subjectTask Performance and Analysispt_BR
dc.subjectMultitasking behaviorpt_BR
dc.subjectNeurologic Gait Disorderspt_BR
dc.titleIndividuals with multiple sclerosis present lower velocity and similar cadence to healthy peerspt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.doihttps://www.revista.ueg.br/index.php/movimenta/article/view/11500pt_BR
dc.citation.volume14pt_BR
dc.citation.issue1pt_BR
dc.citation.spage3pt_BR
dc.citation.epage9pt_BR
dc.description.resumoObjetivo: Investigar velocidade e cadência em pessoas com esclerose múltipla (EM) submetidas a diferentes tarefas de caminhada e comparar resultados com os encontrados em controles saudáveis. Métodos: 133 participantes, 66 com e 67 sem EM, foram incluídos neste estudo. Os indivíduos foram divididos em três grupos de acordo com o quadro clínico e a gravidade da doença. O grupo 1 foi formado por 40 indivíduos com EM estágio leve, o grupo 2 foi composto por 26 indivíduos com EM estágio moderado e o grupo 3 foi formado por 67 sujeitos controles saudáveis. A velocidade dos participantes (m/s) e cadência (passos/minuto) foram avaliados durante um teste de caminhada, usando um sistema de marcha bidimensional. Os testes foram aplicados com distratores motores e cognitivos. Para a análise estatística utilizou-se o teste de análise de variância de medidas repetidas, sob significância de 5%. Resultados: Os resultados mostraram que velocidade depende da tarefa e do grupo, isto é, o impacto difere de acordo com a condição clínica (p=0,001; poder: 99,9%) e tarefa (p=0,001; poder: 99,9%). A cadência mostrou-se dependente da tarefa, mas não do grupo. Ou seja, tarefas complexas afetam a cadência em ambos os grupos (p=0,001; poder: 99,9%), mas de forma semelhante (p=0,290; poder: 26,8%). Conclusão: Os resultados sugerem que a condição clínica e a gravidade da EM afetam a velocidade da marcha em uma extensão maior que a cadência. Novos estudos devem ser realizados para investigar os mecanismos de adaptação que ocorrem na EM durante situações desafiadoras.pt_BR
dc.publisher.countryBrasilpt_BR
dc.publisher.initialsUEGpt_BR
dc.subject.cnpqFisioterapia e Terapia Ocupacionalpt_BR
Aparece nas coleções:INISA - Artigos publicados em periódicos

Arquivos associados a este item:
Arquivo Descrição TamanhoFormato 
Movimenta.pdfArtigo181,43 kBAdobe PDFVisualizar/Abrir


Este item está licenciada sob uma Licença Creative Commons Creative Commons