Musculoskeletal DiseasesNCT01440153
Additional Exercise Program in Professional Dancers
A study testing Exercise Intervention and Passive Intervention in people with Musculoskeletal Diseases, run by University College of Antwerp at 1 site in Belgium.
Trial summary
Professional dancing requires an almost perfect control of technical skills, combined with a good physical condition. To meet the demands of choreography, dancers need an adequate aerobic endurance capacity, muscular strength as well as flexibility and motor control (Twitchett et al. 2009; Roussel et al. 2009). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 17 to 27 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Musculoskeletal Diseases
- What is being tested?
- Exercise Intervention and Passive Intervention
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 44 participants
- Where
- 1 siteBelgium
- Study dates
- Sep 2009to Nov 2011
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 17 to 27 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- students enrolled in the Bachelor of Dance at the Royal Conservatoire, Artesis Hogeschool in Lier, Belgium
Who cannot join
- No full time enrollment
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Influence of an Additional Intervention Targeting Physical Fitness, Endurance and Motor Control, on Physical Condition and Musculoskeletal Injuries in Contemporary Dancers
Professional dancing requires an almost perfect control of technical skills, combined with a good physical condition. To meet the demands of choreography, dancers need an adequate aerobic endurance capacity, muscular strength as well as flexibility and motor control (Twitchett et al. 2009; Roussel et al. 2009). One could compare these requirements to those of an athlete. In contrasts to athletes, only few attention has been given to the prevention of injuries in dancers. Professional dancers are at high risk to develop musculoskeletal injuries, especially, soft tissue and overuse injuries to lower extremities and spine(Hincapié et al, 2008). Several potential risk factors for injury have been suggested, such as a reduced level of aerobic fitness, lack of muscular strength, hypermobility of the joints and altered motor control of the lumbopelvic region but no conclusive evidence exists for any of these items separately.
Applying sports science principles to dance training may improve the performances of the dancers (Twitchett et al. 2009). Dancers demonstrate low aerobic fitness and muscle strength, in contrast to the high demands. Aerobic endurance of dancers is for example comparable to healthy adults with a sedentary life style.
Read more
Fitness programs, additional to regular dance classes, have only recently been considered (Twitchett et al. 2009). The advantages of additional training in athletes is beyond questioning. Nevertheless, this concept is relatively new for dancers. On the one hand, professional dancers do not consider themselves as a sportsmen but as artists (Wyon et al, 2007). On the other hand, choreographers and dancers fear the negative influence of training on body aesthetics.
Additional fitness training could improve physical fitness \& motor control and may help with stress coping during public performances. Therefore, the purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to examine whether an additional intervention to regular dance lessons influences the physical condition and musculoskeletal injury rate in professional dancers.
Read the detailed description
Prior to participation, all subjects receive verbal and written information addressing the nature of the study. First dancers are asked to fill in a self-established medical questionnaire, the Short Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36), the Dance Functional Outcome Scale (DFOS), the Baecke questionnaire, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiofobia (TSK). After a baseline assessment, consisting of an evaluation of the physical condition (maximal exercise test, evaluation of the respiratory capacity \& evaluation of explosive muscle strength using a field test), a motor control evaluation of the lumbo-pelvic region and evaluation of anthropometric measurements, the participants are randomly divided into 2 groups. They will receive an 4 months lasting intervention in addition to the regular dance lessons. The time schedule of the intervention is identical for both groups. Participants from group A receive an active program aiming at improving their cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and motor control. The level for cardiovascular training is based on the results of the maximal exercise test performed during baseline assessment. The level of training is determined at a level of 70% of the predicted maximal heart rate and was increased every 6 weeks with 5%, ending at 85%. Heart rate will be monitored during the training.
Participants from group B will receive an alternative program, in which all active parts are replaced by passive interventions. Several education sessions will be given regarding different topics, such as stress management, nutrition, injuries, etc. In addition, also practical sessions well be held to practice massage, passive stretching, taping. The intervention will be supervised by physical therapists and master students in Physiotherapy, experienced in dancing, motor control and/or physical conditioning, and an attendance list will register the presence of the participants.
The injuries of the dancers will be registered during the intervention and during a 6 months follow up period.
- Conditions
- Musculoskeletal Diseases
- Being tested
- Exercise Intervention, Passive Intervention
- Keywords
- Dance, Injury, Physical condition, Exercise
- Medical subject headings
- Musculoskeletal Diseases, Wounds and Injuries, Motor Activity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Exercise InterventionOther
Also called Fitness, Motor control, Physical condition
Participants from group A receive an active program aiming at improving their cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and motor control. The level for cardiovascular training is based on the results of the maximal exercise test performed during baseline assessment. The level of training is determined at a level of 70% of the predicted maximal heart rate and was increased every 6 weeks with 5%, ending at 85%. Heart rate will be monitored during the training.
Passive InterventionOther
Also called stress management, education, taping, massage
Participants from group B will receive an alternative program, in which all active parts are replaced by passive interventions. Several education sessions will be given regarding different topics, such as stress management, nutrition, injuries, etc. In addition, also practical sessions well be held to practice massage, passive stretching, taping.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Active Intervention | Experimental | Not described Receives: Other: Exercise Intervention |
| passive intervention | Active comparator | Not described Receives: Other: Passive Intervention |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Changes in Physical condition
The physical condition is tested using an incremental exercise test on an electronically braked bicycle ergometer with a graded increase in workload. Fatigue during test performance is monitored every minute with a Borg scale from 6 (no fatigue) to 20 (complete exhaustion). There is continuous monitoring of electrocardiographic and ventilatory variables such as ventilation rate, respiration rate, VCO2 and VO2
Measured: Post intervention (6 months after baseline evaluation)
Secondary outcomes (4)
changes in musculoskeletal injury incidence during the intervention
A standardized questionnaire is used to collect demographic information at baseline, and an injury registration form is used to assess musculoskeletal symptoms and injuries (Cumps et al., 2007). Using this injury registration form, information is gathered about the occurrence of the symptoms and injuries, the time loss and the medical diagnosis. This injury registration form has already been used in prospective epidemiology research in sportsmen (Cumps et al., 2007) and in dancers (Roussel et al., 2009).
Measured: during intervervention (6 months after baseline)
changes in motor control
Lumbo-pelvic movement control is assessed by evaluating the subjects' ability to control movement of the lumbo-pelvic region while performing simple movements in the hips. Four commonly used clinical tests, i.e. the Active Straight Leg Raising, Bent Knee Fall Out, Knee Lift Abdominal Test and Standing Bow are used in the present study for the evaluation of lumbo-pelvic movement control. The reliability of these tests has been described elsewhere (Roussel et al. 2009a).
Measured: post intervention (6 months after baseline)
Changes in functional evaluation during the intervention
The SF-36 is a generic instrument in which health-related quality of life is measured. The dance functional outcome questionnaire consists of two parts: daily activities and dance-related functionality. For every question there are six possible responses, ranging from 'excellent functionality' to 'poor functionality'. The DFOS has very good test-retest reliability for healthy professional dancers and is very sensitive to functional changes in the dancers (Bronner et al., 2007).
Measured: Post intervention (6 months after baseline)
Changes in Functional evaluation during follow up
The same questionnaires will further be collected during the follow up period (12 and 18 months after baseline assessment)
Measured: Folow up (till 18 months after baseline evaluation)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 Sep 2011 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2009
- Primary completionAug 2011
- Study completionNov 2011 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Musculoskeletal DiseasesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University College of Antwerp
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Universiteit Antwerpen
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Nathalie A Roussel, PhD, Principal investigator, Artesis University CollegeWilfried De BAcker, PhD, MD, Study director, Universiteit Antwerpen
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01440153
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UZA-DRCT-2011
- Status last verified
- Sep 2011
- First submitted
- 23 Aug 2011
- Last updated
- 26 Sep 2011
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Roussel NA, Vissers D, Kuppens K, Fransen E, Truijen S, Nijs J, De Backer W. Effect of a physical conditioning versus health promotion intervention in dancers: a randomized controlled trial. Man Ther. 2014 Dec;19(6):562-8. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2014.05.008. Epub 2014 Jun 3.
PubMed 24951437
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Sep 2011. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Influence of an Additional Intervention Targeting Physical Fitness, Endurance and Motor Control, on Physical Condition and Musculoskeletal Injuries in Contemporary Dancers
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01440153
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- UZA-DRCT-2011
- Conditions
- Musculoskeletal Diseases
- Keywords
- Dance, Injury, Physical condition, Exercise
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 44 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University College of AntwerpUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Universiteit Antwerpen
- Study start
- Sep 2009
- Primary completion
- Aug 2011 (actual)
- Study completion
- Nov 2011 (estimated)
- First posted
- 26 Sep 2011 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Professional dancing requires an almost perfect control of technical skills, combined with a good physical condition. To meet the demands of choreography, dancers need an adequate aerobic endurance capacity, muscular strength as well as flexibility and motor control (Twitchett et al. 2009; Roussel et al. 2009). One could compare these requirements to those of an athlete. In contrasts to athletes, only few attention has been given to the prevention of injuries in dancers. Professional dancers are at high risk to develop musculoskeletal injuries, especially, soft tissue and overuse injuries to lower extremities and spine(Hincapié et al, 2008). Several potential risk factors for injury have been suggested, such as a reduced level of aerobic fitness, lack of muscular strength, hypermobility of the joints and altered motor control of the lumbopelvic region but no conclusive evidence exists for any of these items separately.
Applying sports science principles to dance training may improve the performances of the dancers (Twitchett et al. 2009). Dancers demonstrate low aerobic fitness and muscle strength, in contrast to the high demands. Aerobic endurance of dancers is for example comparable to healthy adults with a sedentary life style.
Fitness programs, additional to regular dance classes, have only recently been considered (Twitchett et al. 2009). The advantages of additional training in athletes is beyond questioning. Nevertheless, this concept is relatively new for dancers. On the one hand, professional dancers do not consider themselves as a sportsmen but as artists (Wyon et al, 2007). On the other hand, choreographers and dancers fear the negative influence of training on body aesthetics.
Additional fitness training could improve physical fitness \& motor control and may help with stress coping during public performances. Therefore, the purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to examine whether an additional intervention to regular dance lessons influences the physical condition and musculoskeletal injury rate in professional dancers.
Detailed description
Prior to participation, all subjects receive verbal and written information addressing the nature of the study. First dancers are asked to fill in a self-established medical questionnaire, the Short Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36), the Dance Functional Outcome Scale (DFOS), the Baecke questionnaire, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiofobia (TSK). After a baseline assessment, consisting of an evaluation of the physical condition (maximal exercise test, evaluation of the respiratory capacity \& evaluation of explosive muscle strength using a field test), a motor control evaluation of the lumbo-pelvic region and evaluation of anthropometric measurements, the participants are randomly divided into 2 groups. They will receive an 4 months lasting intervention in addition to the regular dance lessons. The time schedule of the intervention is identical for both groups. Participants from group A receive an active program aiming at improving their cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and motor control. The level for cardiovascular training is based on the results of the maximal exercise test performed during baseline assessment. The level of training is determined at a level of 70% of the predicted maximal heart rate and was increased every 6 weeks with 5%, ending at 85%. Heart rate will be monitored during the training.
Participants from group B will receive an alternative program, in which all active parts are replaced by passive interventions. Several education sessions will be given regarding different topics, such as stress management, nutrition, injuries, etc. In addition, also practical sessions well be held to practice massage, passive stretching, taping. The intervention will be supervised by physical therapists and master students in Physiotherapy, experienced in dancing, motor control and/or physical conditioning, and an attendance list will register the presence of the participants.
The injuries of the dancers will be registered during the intervention and during a 6 months follow up period.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Active Intervention | Experimental | Other: Exercise Intervention |
| passive intervention | Active comparator | Other: Passive Intervention |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 17 to 27 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- students enrolled in the Bachelor of Dance at the Royal Conservatoire, Artesis Hogeschool in Lier, Belgium
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- No full time enrollment
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Exercise InterventionAlso: Fitness, Motor control, Physical conditionParticipants from group A receive an active program aiming at improving their cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and motor control. The level for cardiovascular training is based on the results of the maximal exercise test performed during baseline assessment. The level of training is determined at a level of 70% of the predicted maximal heart rate and was increased every 6 weeks with 5%, ending at 85%. Heart rate will be monitored during the training. | Other | Active Intervention |
| Passive InterventionAlso: stress management, education, taping, massageParticipants from group B will receive an alternative program, in which all active parts are replaced by passive interventions. Several education sessions will be given regarding different topics, such as stress management, nutrition, injuries, etc. In addition, also practical sessions well be held to practice massage, passive stretching, taping. | Other | passive intervention |
Primary outcome
Changes in Physical condition
Time frame: Post intervention (6 months after baseline evaluation)
The physical condition is tested using an incremental exercise test on an electronically braked bicycle ergometer with a graded increase in workload. Fatigue during test performance is monitored every minute with a Borg scale from 6 (no fatigue) to 20 (complete exhaustion). There is continuous monitoring of electrocardiographic and ventilatory variables such as ventilation rate, respiration rate, VCO2 and VO2
4 secondary outcomes
changes in musculoskeletal injury incidence during the intervention
Time frame: during intervervention (6 months after baseline)
changes in motor control
Time frame: post intervention (6 months after baseline)
Changes in functional evaluation during the intervention
Time frame: Post intervention (6 months after baseline)
Changes in Functional evaluation during follow up
Time frame: Folow up (till 18 months after baseline evaluation)
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Sep 2011.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 24951437Roussel NA, Vissers D, Kuppens K, Fransen E, Truijen S, Nijs J, De Backer W. Effect of a physical conditioning versus health promotion intervention in dancers: a randomized controlled trial. Man Ther. 2014 Dec;19(6):562-8. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2014.05.008. Epub 2014 Jun 3.
Related trials for Musculoskeletal Diseases
Enrolling by invitationPhase 2
Extension Study of Infigratinib in Children With Achondroplasia (ACH)
Achondroplasia
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study of MACI in Patients Aged 17 to 65 Years With Symptomatic Chondral or Osteochondral Defects of the Ankle
Chondral Defect, Articular Cartilage Defect
Recruiting
Effect of a Constipation Prevention Checklist in Hip Surgery Patients
Constipation, Perioperative Nursing
RecruitingPhase 2/3
Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of BMN 333 Versus Vosoritide in Children With Achondroplasia
Achondroplasia
Recruiting
Activity Post Spinal Surgery Engagement Trial
Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Nathalie A Roussel, PhD principal investigator
Artesis University College
Wilfried De BAcker, PhD, MD study director
Universiteit Antwerpen
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Exercise Intervention and Passive Intervention in people with Musculoskeletal Diseases, run by University College of Antwerp at 1 site in Belgium.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Sep 2011. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Belgium. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Changes in Physical condition (time frame: Post intervention (6 months after baseline evaluation)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01440153, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Sep 2011; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 28 Oct 2026.