Abstract
Auditory entrainment can influence gait performance in movement disorders. The entrainment can incite neurophysiological and musculoskeletal changes to enhance motor execution. However, a consensus as to its effects based on gait in people with cerebral palsy is still warranted. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to analyze the effects of rhythmic auditory cueing on spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters of gait in people with cerebral palsy. Systematic identification of published literature was performed adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine guidelines, from inception until July 2017, on online databases: Web of Science, PEDro, EBSCO, Medline, Cochrane, Embase and ProQuest. Kinematic and spatiotemporal gait parameters were evaluated in a meta-analysis across studies. Of 547 records, nine studies involving 227 participants (108 children/119 adults) met our inclusion criteria. The qualitative review suggested beneficial effects of rhythmic auditory cueing on gait performance among all included studies. The meta-analysis revealed beneficial effects of rhythmic auditory cueing on gait dynamic index (Hedge’s g=0.9), gait velocity (1.1), cadence (0.3), and stride length (0.5). This review for the first time suggests a converging evidence toward application of rhythmic auditory cueing to enhance gait performance and stability in people with cerebral palsy. This article details underlying neurophysiological mechanisms and use of cueing as an efficient home-based intervention. It bridges gaps in the literature, and suggests translational approaches on how rhythmic auditory cueing can be incorporated in rehabilitation approaches to enhance gait performance in people with cerebral palsy.
Acknowledgments
Publication of this article was funded by the Open Access Fund of Leibniz Universität, Hannover.
Author contributions
SG conceptualized the study, carried out the systematic review and statistical analysis, and wrote the paper. IG and AOE were involved in the systematic review process and reviewed the final manuscript. All authors contributed toward data analysis, drafting and revising the paper and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.