PTOTSystematic ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2024

Overview of Effects of Motor Learning Strategies in Neurologic and Geriatric Populations: A Systematic Mapping Review.

Li-Juan Jie, Melanie Kleynen, Guus Rothuizen and 3 others

PMID 39822211

WHAT IT FOUND

Most trials on motor learning strategies in older adults had weak methods.

Only 5 studies were reliable enough to interpret. Results were mixed: dual-task and observational learning showed some promise in specific groups, but firm conclusions on effectiveness cannot be drawn.

Key findings

01Only 5 of the 87 included studies had a low risk of bias and justified their sample size, limiting the certainty of any conclusions about effectiveness.

02Among the few reliable studies, dual-task training showed benefits for gait and balance in Parkinson's and older adults, while analogy learning showed no benefit for stroke gait.

03Observational learning showed a positive trend in 8 of 11 moderately reliable studies, particularly when added to usual care.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Most included studies had a high or moderate risk of bias. Many studies lacked proper sample size justification. The review could not perform a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes. Publication bias may be present, though it could not be assessed via funnel plots. Authors did not contact study authors to retrieve missing information.

Declared interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the positive trends in dual-task or observational learning as proof that these interventions are superior to standard care. The vast majority of studies were too flawed to draw firm conclusions, and the review itself states it cannot provide a strong basis for decision-making.

Read it on PubMed →