# Home-Based Lower Limb Exercises for Individuals with Diabetes: A Scoping Review
## 3 Results
### Results of Retrieved Articles
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt}} \hline \hline
**Study/ Country/ Type of Study** & **Measure Devices** & **Outcome Measures and Follow-Up/ Results** \\ \hline  & Patients received the intervention for one year, with outcome assessments at baseline, post-surgery, and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months via home visits. Families kept weekly diaries. Adherence to home-based rehabilitation declined, but over 50\% adhered. High-adherence patients showed better recovery, including improved ankle extension RoM, greater muscle strength, and better self-care abilities than the low-adherence group. \\ \hline  & Tactile Sensitivity Test: \\ \(\bullet\) & Performed using a Semmes–Weinstein 10 g monofilament (Sorriß, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil) to assess plantar sensitivity. \\ \(\bullet\) & Monofilament was applied to the plantar region of the hallmark (1.40 m \(\times\) 0.43 m) to measure vertical forces exerted by the feet. \\ \(\bullet\) & The system used four transducers with a 100 Hz sampling frequency. \\ \(\bullet\) & Test Procedures (each test was repeated three times, and the mean was calculated): \\ \(\bullet\) & Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance (mCTSIB): Assessed sensory system in static bipedal position or firm or unstable surfaces with eyes open or closed. \\ \(\bullet\) & Limits of stability: Measured the maximum distance the volunteer could intentionally displace their center of gravity without losing balance. \\ \(\bullet\) & Walk: Assessed gait characteristics while walking across the platform. \\ \(\bullet\) & Vibratory Sensitivity Test: \\ \(\bullet\) & A tuning fork at 128 Hz was positioned on the first metatarsus and medial malleolus of both lower limbs. \\ \(\bullet\) & The test was considered negative if there was diminished sensitivity. \\ \(\bullet\) & Neuropathy Symptoms Score: \\ \(\bullet\) & Diagnosed diabetic distal polyneuropathy based on six neurological symptoms experienced by the patient. \\ \(\bullet\) & Physical Activity Assessment: \\ \(\bullet\) & The short version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was administered verbally to estimate weekly physical activity time. \\ \hline  & & Bipedal balance, gait, and functional performance were assessed before and after 12 weeks using the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and a force plate. \\ \(\bullet\) & The proposed proprioceptive training did not improve postural control in patients with type 2 diabetes who showed no clinical signs of diabetic distal polyneuropathy. This conclusion was based on analyses of bipedal stance, gait, and functional tests using the BESTest and force plate measurements. \\ \hline  & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt} p{142.3 pt}} \hline \hline
**Study/** & **Outcome Measures and Follow-Up/** \\
**Country/** & **Measure Devices** & **Results** \\ \hline  & Postural Control Evaluation: & \\  & Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest): & \\  & Consisted of 36 tasks across six sections, scored on a four-point scale (0 to 3). Areas assessed: biomechanical constraints, stability limits, anticipatory postural adjustments, reactive postural responses, sensory orientation, and gait stability. Maximum score: 108 points. & \\  & NeuroCom Balance Master System: Used a fixed force plate to evaluate balance. & \\  & & Feasibility Outcomes: \\  & & Recruitment spanned 20 weeks from \\  & 1310 individuals with diabetes. Of these, 1168 were contacted (89\%), 323 (28\%) met initial criteria, and 20 (6.2\%) with moderate DPN (fuzzy score \(\geq\) 2) were enrolled (1 participant/week). Adherence was 77.7\%, with 7 of 9 participants completing at least 75\% of sessions and 5 completing all. The average was 21.6 (\(\pm\)3.5 sessions. Two participants dropped out due to personal reasons and travel distance (CG: 9.1\%, IG: 11.1\%). Satisfaction was high (median: 4, IQR: 4–5); 44.1\% rated it excellent, 51.9\% great, and all would recommend the booklet.