# Effectiveness of High-Intensity Therapy in Rehabilitation of Parkinson's Disease Patients
## 4 Results
### Group Comparisons and Statistical Significance  
A one-way ANOVA analysis revealed significant differences in balance control, velocity, and sway area across therapy groups (_p_ < 0.05). Specifically, the Sway (mm) COP-WEO 2 parameter demonstrated notable variations among the groups (F = 3.585, \(p\) = 0.0166), indicating substantial differences in balance stability. Similarly, the Sway (mm) COP-NEO 2 parameter showed significant disparities in therapy effects, with F = 12.484, \(p\) < 0.001, confirming that different interventions had varying impacts on postural control. The Sway (mm) COP-NEC 2 parameter also exhibited significant differences (F = 5.219, \(p\) = 0.0022), highlighting that postural instability was more pronounced in certain therapy groups. Further analysis revealed significant velocity variations across groups, particularly in the 2 steps1, 2 steps2, and 2 steps3 conditions (_p_ < 0.05), suggesting differential therapy effects on movement speed. Additionally, area measurements for 2 steps1 and 2 steps3 showed significant differences (F = 3.767, \(p\) = 0.0132 and F = 5.905, \(p\) = 0.00097, respectively), indicating distinct patterns of postural adjustments across therapies. A Tukey-HSD post-hoc test was performed to identify pairwise differences among therapy groups. Results demonstrated a significant difference in Sway (mm) COP-WEO 2 between Agility and Exergame therapies (_p_ = 0.0156). Additionally, Sway (mm) COP-NEO 2 showed a substantial disparity, with Cycling therapy exhibiting considerably different outcomes compared to the other groups (_p_ < 0.0001). In terms of movement velocity, the Agility group differed significantly from the Cycling group in 2 steps1 velocity (_p_ = 0.0153). Postural sway area analysis in 2 steps3 revealed that Cycling therapy led to significantly distinct results compared to the other groups (_p_ = 0.0023-0.0148). A paired _t_-test further confirmed substantial within-group improvements following therapy interventions. Specifically, Sway (mm) COP-WEO 1  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Outcome Variable** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **95\% CI** \\ \hline Sway (mm) COP-WEC 1 & 3 & 25 & 11.62 & 5.63 & 9.296–13.944 \\ Sway (mm) COP-WEC 1 & 4 & 25 & 15.19 & 3.52 & 13.737–16.643 \\ Sway (mm) COP-NEC 1 & 1 & 25 & 12.04 & 4.28 & 10.273–13.807 \\ Sway (mm) COP-NEC 1 & 2 & 25 & 15.94 & 6.17 & 13.393–18.487 \\ Sway (mm) COP-NEC 1 & 3 & 25 & 16.69 & 6.03 & 14.201–19.179 \\ Sway (mm) COP-NEC 1 & 4 & 25 & 15.85 & 8.06 & 12.523–19.177 \\ Borg1 & 1 & 25 & 15.48 & 1.61 & 14.815–16.145 \\ Borg1 & 2 & 25 & 14.44 & 1.58 & 13.788–15.092 \\ Borg1 & 3 & 25 & 15.18 & 1.68 & 14.487–15.873 \\ Borg1 & 4 & 25 & 16.56 & 1.19 & 16.069–17.051 \\ Borg2 & 1 & 25 & 15.68 & 1.51 & 15.057–16.303 \\ Borg2 & 2 & 25 & 15.6 & 1.47 & 14.993–16.207 \\ Borg2 & 3 & 25 & 15.36 & 1.6 & 14.7–16.02 \\ Borg2 & 4 & 25 & 16.48 & 1.71 & 15.774–17.186 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: _Cont._vs. WEO 2 revealed a strong improvement in balance control (\(p<0.001\)). Velocity measures also improved significantly, with 1 steps1 vs. 2 steps1 showing a highly significant increase in movement speed (\(p<0.001\)). Additionally, Area (cm\({}^{2}\)) 1 steps4 vs. 2 steps4 demonstrated a marked reduction in sway area (\(p<0.001\)), suggesting enhanced postural stability following the interventions.