# Effectiveness of High-Intensity Therapy in Rehabilitation of Parkinson's Disease Patients
## 4 Results
### Posturography and Balance Assessments  
The posturography results provided further insights into postural stability across different therapy groups. Statistical analysis revealed significant group differences in COP sway parameters (\(p<0.05\)). The mean sway area measured in a single step was 14.94 cm\({}^{2}\) (SD = 4.20), while in four steps, this value significantly increased to 33.31 cm\({}^{2}\) (SD = 12.51), highlighting the progressive complexity of weight transfer. The center of pressure (COP) deviation was notably lower in the Exergame and Cycling groups, suggesting enhanced postural control, whereas the Robot (Cmill) group exhibited the highest instability. Statistical analysis revealed significant group differences in COP sway parameters. The Sway (mm) COP-WEO 1 parameter indicated that the Robot (Cmill) group (M = 13.44 mm, SD = 4.86) had significantly greater balance fluctuations than the Exergame (M = 10.88 mm, SD = 4.18) and Agility (M = 10.52 mm, SD = 5.91) groups (\(p<0.05\)). Similarly, the Sway (mm) COP-WEC 1 parameter demonstrated significantly worse balance in the Robot (Cmill) group (M = 12.05 mm, SD = 3.53) compared to the Cycling group (M = 9.98 mm, SD = 3.12) (\(p<0.05\)). The Sway (mm) COP-NEC 1 parameter showed that the Robot (Cmill) group (M = 15.86 mm, SD = 8.07) performed significantly worse than the Exergame and Cycling groups (\(p<0.01\)). A Shapiro-Wilk test was conducted to assess the normality of various variables, revealing significant deviations from normality (\(p<0.05\)) in the Sway (mm) COP-WEO 2 group (\(p<0.01\)), Sway (mm) COP-WEC 2 and NEC 2 groups (\(p<0.05\)), as well as Velocity (cm/s) 1 steps1 and 2 steps1 variables (\(p<0.05\)). The detailed numerical values for group-level sway parameters (WEO, WEC, NEC) and perceived exertion (Borg RPE scores) are summarized in Table 3. The posturography outcomes presented in Table 3 include only COP Sway (mm) measures. COP Velocity and COP Area metrics were not analyzed in this study.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Variable** & **Time** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **95\% CI** \\ \hline FIM total & Post & 4 & 25 & 92.8 & 5.292 & 90.616–94.984 \\ FIM motor & Pre & 1 & 25 & 48.56 & 7.89 & 45.303–51.817 \\ FIM motor & Pre & 2 & 25 & 50.24 & 7.201 & 47.268–53.212 \\ FIM motor & Pre & 3 & 25 & 50.52 & 7.411 & 47.461–53.579 \\ FIM motor & Pre & 4 & 25 & 48.04 & 6.01 & 45.559–50.521 \\ FIM motor & Post & 1 & 25 & 70.48 & 5.546 & 68.191–72.769 \\ FIM motor & Post & 2 & 25 & 63.32 & 7.846 & 60.081–66.559 \\ FIM motor & Post & 3 & 25 & 70.36 & 5.275 & 68.183–72.537 \\ FIM motor & Post & 4 & 25 & 75.36 & 6.855 & 72.53–78.19 \\ Fall Efficacy Scale & Pre & 1 & 25 & 80.08 & 4.966 & 78.03–82.13 \\ Fall Efficacy Scale & Pre & 2 & 25 & 81.12 & 5.6 & 78.808–83.432 \\ Fall Efficacy Scale & Pre & 3 & 25 & 84.04 & 6.341 & 81.423–86.657 \\ Fall Efficacy Scale & Pre & 4 & 25 & 84.04 & 7.109 & 81.105–86.975 \\ Fall Efficacy Scale & Post & 1 & 25 & 61.28 & 9.258 & 57.458–65.102 \\ Fall Efficacy Scale & Post & 2 & 25 & 70.12 & 4.456 & 68.28–71.96 \\ Fall Efficacy Scale & Post & 3 & 25 & 64.84 & 10.044 & 60.694–68.986 \\ Fall Efficacy Scale & Post & 4 & 25 & 61.52 & 9.492 & 57.602–65.438 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Outcome Variable** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **95\% CI** \\ \hline Sway (mm) COP-WEO 1 & 1 & 25 & 10.87 & 4.17 & 9.149–12.591 \\ Sway (mm) COP-WEO 1 & 2 & 25 & 12.87 & 5.33 & 10.67–15.07 \\ Sway (mm) COP-WEO 1 & 3 & 25 & 10.51 & 5.9 & 8.075–12.945 \\ Sway (mm) COP-WEO 1 & 4 & 25 & 13.44 & 4.85 & 11.438–15.442 \\ Sway (mm) COP-WEC 1 & 1 & 25 & 12.71 & 4.14 & 11.001–14.419 \\ Sway (mm) COP-WEC 1 & 2 & 25 & 12.55 & 2.69 & 11.44–13.66 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Posturography sway measures and Borg RPE scores (with 95% confidence intervals).